De-evolution of Planetside?!

[Access]

As most old-school gamers I was growing more and more sceptical towards the
gaming industry over the past years, since it seemed to hit a serious dead end
in terms of innovation or evolution of their games. I was getting bored, annoyed,
and finally angry at how the industry doesnt even care to try anymore.
Even more annoying is the fact that they gloriously succeeded in constantly
dumbing down their customers to a point where there is nothing more important
about a game but the name of the frenchise and technological advancements of
a games engine.

But than, at last, a deep and unspoken hope was answered last year with the
official announcement of Planetside 2. Hell yeah! I survived the drought-stricken
years of boring killgames, horrid rpgs and empty and lifeless mmos to embrace the
goddess called Planetside once again to entertain me for years to come.
Or so I thought...

I was excited and thrilled over every video we got to see, every stream,
interview and information we got to fantasize with. Well... that is until I got
to see the gameplay at the E3 livestream the last few days. And there it was,
like a lump on the testicles, the slowly rising realisation that things might
not work out as perfectly as you imagined.

After seeing the gameplay footage these past days I'm actually pretty amazed
how most of the so called "veteran" players tend to ignore the fact that nearly
all of the tactical gameplay, which was pretty much the backbone of Planetside,
is close to nonexistant in the sequel...

And what we are left with today is roughly:

1. killing stuff with a handgun
2. killing stuff with a vehicle
3. killing stuff with an aircraft
4. killing stuff with landing droppods on their heads
5. domination gametype

I'm very dissappointed since as of now the game got no kind of tactical depth
what so ever compared to the original. Without tactical hotspots like command
centers, generator rooms or even destroyable spawn points/equipment
terminals I honestly dont see a need for any planned out tactical gameplay
anymore which made Planetside the game we all loved. All we get is a massive
killgame as seen ever so often before.

Character/Weapon/Vehicle customization does not make a game interesting, the
gameplay does. And it is lacking way behind of what any honest veteran Planetside
player should expect it to be.
I dont really like what is advertised in the visual customization department either.
It is seriously lackluster and behind on what should be possible with the engine
or even is appealing enough to even pay for it. For example the oh so boring
different 20th century camo skins... why...?! this is not CoD MoH or hatever,
this is the 28th century, a time appropriate customization should not be too much
to ask for. I really hope theres much more interesting customization planned until
release, like nanowired or battleworn armor, since I honestly cant see the game
manage its finances with just the booster sells in the long run.

Dont get me wrong, I love the engine, the fast paced action, skies burning up
from airbattles, falling debree and the design and textures of the models. (the
vehicle and base ones, the weapons on the other hand are really in need of some
workover sound/modelwise)

But please, why the freck does it have to be a so damn simplified Planetside?

Welcome to the de-evolution of games, where the developers nowadays accredit
the avarage gamer the attention span of a squirrel. (which is according to a
random internet person up to 4 minutes)
:domotwak:

[The Janitor]

ohlookitsthisthreadagain.jpg

Just wait for beta. The Devs will listen if there are any major problems to iron out. They're cool like that.

[ThermalReaper]

What was that phrase that was used around this forums thousands of times?

Wait for the beta.

It's the only way to make sure your concerns are correct/incorrect.

[lolroflroflcake]

While the E3 demo was shallow, remember they especially rigged it for E3. In a few of the interviews Higby even mentioned that they were considering adding tactical objectives such as generators and the like into the game.

[Landtank]

You can't look at the E3 gameplay at call that PlanetSide 2. There was a limited area, forward base spawns with vehicle pads, and everyone was trying to do everything the game had to offer in 15 minutes.

For E3 they made it very much like a CoD or BF3 map, limited in scope, designed to get you into the action as fast as possible, very unlike PlanetSide 2. The game is about 64 square kilometers of warfare, this was only 2% of that map.

While I understand your concerns, you shouldn't be worried. If we play Beta and its like the E3 demo, then we can be concerned :D

[Xaine]

I understand and agree with most of what you said.

Sadly, PS2 is aimed at a bigger market and to make the game more accessible to more people, the game has to be dumbed down.

I said this in a thread recently, and everyone went into a fan-boy nerd rage and chewed my face off, so i can't be bothered trying to talk about it any more.

However, the game is being made more simple and it is being dumbed down, its just a fact.

[Landtank]

I understand and agree with most of what you said.

Sadly, PS2 is aimed at a bigger market and to make the game more accessible to more people, the game has to be dumbed down.

I said this in a thread recently, and everyone went into a fan-boy nerd rage and chewed my face off, so i can't be bothered trying to talk about it any more.

However, the game is being made more simple and it is being dumbed down, its just a fact.

Hows it dumbed down? Not trying to attack, just curious haha.

[ThermalReaper]

I understand and agree with most of what you said.

Sadly, PS2 is aimed at a bigger market and to make the game more accessible to more people, the game has to be dumbed down.

I said this in a thread recently, and everyone went into a fan-boy nerd rage and chewed my face off, so i can't be bothered trying to talk about it any more.

However, the game is being made more simple and it is being dumbed down, its just a fact.

I'm sure it is, I saw the video of you breaking into SOE offices and playing the complete version of PS2 they are trolling us with. Oh wait.

[DayOne]

"Character/Weapon/Vehicle customization" is what make the gameplay interesting!

and this:
"1. killing stuff with a handgun
2. killing stuff with a vehicle
3. killing stuff with an aircraft
4. killing stuff with landing droppods on their heads
5. domination gametype"

Are you NOT liking these things? You don't like diversity when it comes to ways in which to win a fight? Hell, even PS1 base capture was basically either like one, really long capture time, domination point or a capture the flag.

Yes, some people are going to play this game just to shoot at stuff (PS1 "zerg rush" anyone?) but with the mission system these people can be controlled by others who know how to play the meta game, e.g. capturing the right bases to stop the enemy from being able to spawn so many tanks.

Games are not de-evolving, you are simply ignorant of the change that is taking place.


Higby even mentioned that they were considering adding tactical objectives such as generators and the like into the game.

Also this^

[Sledgecrushr]

Im pretty positive the ttk is going to be scaled back a bit for infantry and maybe a bit more for vehicles to make engi/medic jobs more relevant.

[Envenom]

Looked pretty incredible to me and LIGHTYEARS ahead of the competition.

Don't trip on the door on your way out.

[ArmedZealot]

Bittervet circle jerk in 3....2.....1.....

[Kalbuth]

What will replace ANT runs mecanism? What will take place of generator holds? What different tactical options will be left when assaulting a base? (PS1 had several possible targets to get around a full head-on CC engagement)

That's basically what OP is asking.

Answer seems to be : weapon customization, mission system. Ie : missing the point

[Dagron]

I for one would be a little disappointed if all the bases were limited to the same domination style gameplay, but let's wait for more information before starting to get sad about stuff... being depressed over what might be coming ahead solves nothing, it just makes you feel silly when your concerns turn out to be unfounded. :p

[Death2All]

I know where you're coming from and how you feel. A LOT of the features and mechanics that were present in PS1 are no longer a part of PS2, and have instead, been replaced with more modern FPS mechanics that don't really add a whole lot of depth to a game.

However, I still feel there's a lot of room in PS2 for tactical gameplay, albeit lackluster in depth compared to the original. Whether or not this is true, we'll just have to wait until beta (cop out answer, I know).

Unfortunately, as you have obviously noticed, game developers are making more and more compromises to appeal the a wider audience. There aren't a whole lot of games being developed nowadays for the "hardcore" audience. Everything is being simplified and mainstreamed to appeal to a more casual gamer.

I think we can all agree that PS1 was the greatest game ever made and nothing will ever touch it. PS2 may be very close contender, but unfortunately, do to compromises from game developers and evolution (or de-evolution as you put) of games, I don't think it will ever surpass PS1's greatness. The game just had an amazing amount of depth, logistics and potential that no other games of this generation could ever aspire for.

[LightningDriver]

I don't see how you can equate a tech demo of the game where everyone is running around figuring out how to play, compared to how outfits will run at release.

Everyone I have spoken to in my outfit is looking forward to this. We feel it's not a perfect product (but what ever is, right?), however, we are overwhelmingly positive. These doom posts every time a new game gets released is beyond old.

[Shrink]

The build you saw at E3 was exactly that. A build made specifically for E3. It shows the people who don't know PS1, most of the people at E3, what the game might be like if you are attacking a base all at once on an even battlefield. We all know it will be different than this, so chill. Wait for beta broski

[Zebasiz]

Also it seems by your post that you're mainly judging this from the E3 livestream, which they said was a "simplified" version of the game. With set up spawn locations for each faction, a few control points, and short respawn timers.
Mainly it was set up so people could get a feel for what the large combat would look/ feel like. But there wasn't enough time to really display any of the tactical gameplay. They had only 10 odd minutes for each person.

Gah, ninja!

[JPalmer]

I understand and agree with most of what you said.

Sadly, PS2 is aimed at a bigger market and to make the game more accessible to more people, the game has to be dumbed down.

I said this in a thread recently, and everyone went into a fan-boy nerd rage and chewed my face off, so i can't be bothered trying to talk about it any more.

However, the game is being made more simple and it is being dumbed down, its just a fact.

It is called streamlining. Not "dumbing down."

And there is nothing wrong with that. ADS and a class system were needed.

I for one can't wait for class updates. Something PS1 could not do.

[basti]

As most old-school gamers I was growing more and more sceptical towards the
gaming industry over the past years, since it seemed to hit a serious dead end
in terms of innovation or evolution of their games. I was getting bored, annoyed,
and finally angry at how the industry doesnt even care to try anymore.
Even more annoying is the fact that they gloriously succeeded in constantly
dumbing down their customers to a point where there is nothing more important
about a game but the name of the frenchise and technological advancements of
a games engine.

But than, at last, a deep and unspoken hope was answered last year with the
official announcement of Planetside 2. Hell yeah! I survived the drought-stricken
years of boring killgames, horrid rpgs and empty and lifeless mmos to embrace the
goddess called Planetside once again to entertain me for years to come.
Or so I thought...

I was excited and thrilled over every video we got to see, every stream,
interview and information we got to fantasize with. Well... that is until I got
to see the gameplay at the E3 livestream the last few days. And there it was,
like a lump on the testicles, the slowly rising realisation that things might
not work out as perfectly as you imagined.

After seeing the gameplay footage these past days I'm actually pretty amazed
how most of the so called "veteran" players tend to ignore the fact that nearly
all of the tactical gameplay, which was pretty much the backbone of Planetside,
is close to nonexistant in the sequel...

And what we are left with today is roughly:

1. killing stuff with a handgun
2. killing stuff with a vehicle
3. killing stuff with an aircraft
4. killing stuff with landing droppods on their heads
5. domination gametype

I'm very dissappointed since as of now the game got no kind of tactical depth
what so ever compared to the original. Without tactical hotspots like command
centers, generator rooms or even destroyable spawn points/equipment
terminals I honestly dont see a need for any planned out tactical gameplay
anymore which made Planetside the game we all loved. All we get is a massive
killgame as seen ever so often before.

Character/Weapon/Vehicle customization does not make a game interesting, the
gameplay does. And it is lacking way behind of what any honest veteran Planetside
player should expect it to be.
I dont really like what is advertised in the visual customization department either.
It is seriously lackluster and behind on what should be possible with the engine
or even is appealing enough to even pay for it. For example the oh so boring
different 20th century camo skins... why...?! this is not CoD MoH or hatever,
this is the 28th century, a time appropriate customization should not be too much
to ask for. I really hope theres much more interesting customization planned until
release, like nanowired or battleworn armor, since I honestly cant see the game
manage its finances with just the booster sells in the long run.

Dont get me wrong, I love the engine, the fast paced action, skies burning up
from airbattles, falling debree and the design and textures of the models. (the
vehicle and base ones, the weapons on the other hand are really in need of some
workover sound/modelwise)

But please, why the freck does it have to be a so damn simplified Planetside?

Welcome to the de-evolution of games, where the developers nowadays accredit
the avarage gamer the attention span of a squirrel. (which is according to a
random internet person up to 4 minutes)
:domotwak:


Someone get me a facepalm Picture to edit into later!


WHat have you seen of Planetside 2 at E3? The same as i saw? Because i saw a good shooter with 2000 players on a map. What we make out of it is completly up to us.
Of course you havent seen the tactical gameplay that we used to have in PS, but thats simply because those guys who played at E3 are dorks that dont have a clue. How could they, most of them never played planetside, and they played planetside 2 for like 30 minutes.

Planetside wasnt amazing because of its shooter elements. Planetside was amazing because we made it amazing!

[PredatorFour]

"Character/Weapon/Vehicle customization" is what make the gameplay interesting!

and this:
"1. killing stuff with a handgun
2. killing stuff with a vehicle
3. killing stuff with an aircraft
4. killing stuff with landing droppods on their heads
5. domination gametype"

Are you NOT liking these things? You don't like diversity when it comes to ways in which to win a fight? Hell, even PS1 base capture was basically either like one, really long capture time, domination point or a capture the flag.

Yes, some people are going to play this game just to shoot at stuff (PS1 "zerg rush" anyone?) but with the mission system these people can be controlled by others who know how to play the meta game, e.g. capturing the right bases to stop the enemy from being able to spawn so many tanks.

Games are not de-evolving, you are simply ignorant of the change that is taking place.




Also this^

You completely misunderstood what he was saying. Games like cod are cash cows which churn out the same game every year for money, so other games are trying to cash in on these players. By making their games simpler and easier to understand(run,gun,fun) it will attract these players hence giving them potentially more money. Games are getting easier and easier to play and it is in general a dumbing down. Its a shame they cant make games hard anymore, where it is challenging to play.

[Kalbuth]

It is called streamlining. Not "dumbing down."

And there is nothing wrong with that. ADS and a class system were needed.

I for one can't wait for class updates. Something PS1 could not do.

Classes have nothing to do with what OP outlined

[ringring]

Bittervet circle jerk in 3....2.....1.....
Do be like that, it is an honest conern, don't shut people up.

To the point. I understand your concerns but I only take what I have seen as being partially indicative of the proper game. Even in the commentary Arclegger said something along the lines of 'he can't wait until release and see' the tactical and organised play that will happen'.

So, insert customary wait until beta plea, once we get we'll test things out and point out any gameplay elements that need to be there for longevity.

The game as we saw it looked really simple, which is good put at the same time it needs depth for longevity and that can't be shown in E3 demo kind of environment.

[UKSwiFT]

I'm consistently confused by the belief that 'tactics' can only exist if forced upon a player by a collection of game systems of some kind. It doesn't work that way and couldn't work that way in a massive environment like Planetside 2. Players will do whatever the hell players want to do. What is the 'best' thing to do only evolves from playing the game a lot, which none of us have, to create that meta-game of builds and tactics.

What you can do though, is give incentives to play more tactical such as capturing points, staying alive, and being an all-round better player. That's what happened in PS1 and that is what will happen in PS2. We are given the tools in order to create these epic battles, these epic battles aren't created for us.

[Kalbuth]

Someone get me a facepalm Picture to edit into later!


WHat have you seen of Planetside 2 at E3? The same as i saw? Because i saw a good shooter with 2000 players on a map. What we make out of it is completly up to us.
Of course you havent seen the tactical gameplay that we used to have in PS, but thats simply because those guys who played at E3 are dorks that dont have a clue. How could they, most of them never played planetside, and they played planetside 2 for like 30 minutes.

Planetside wasnt amazing because of its shooter elements. Planetside was amazing because we made it amazing!

I beg to differ a lil bit. PS1 was also awesome because the saving ANT run was a thrilling moment when running through ennemy lines, the gen hold against big opposition was stressfull, and was denying ennemy tanks, etc...

Which existed because the NTU mecanism was in place, the generator system was in place, all that which is not setup by the players, but the game itself.

And I've not seen such objective not necesserily centered on the base capture, but all that was setup around the actual capture, and was a side objective helping the global one.
Perhaps there will be, we can only hope so, but I've yet to see that. It's not stupid to bring up the point

[Access]

Are you NOT liking these things? You don't like diversity when it comes to ways in which to win a fight? Hell, even PS1 base capture was basically either like one, really long capture time, domination point or a capture the flag.


What Planetside distinguished to any other fps back in the day was not the simple
fact that you could shoot people in different ways but that you had different tactical
possibilities to influence a fight short of shooting every single enemy in the face.
It's called in-depth gameplay which PS2 apparently seems to be lacking as of now.


As for the gameplay we've seen in the E3 Demo: the game mechanics are not
changing simply due to the fact that your spawnpoint is a few hundred yards further
off than it was in the forward base. And even though organized outfits are what
made PS into a Legend, due to the fact that there is nothing to do short of zerging
your way from capture point to capture point they wont be able to influence the
game experience like they did in Planetside.

[ThermalReaper]

I still believe that my post should be directed to anyone who believes that something is OP/UP/imbalanced/simplified.

[ArmedZealot]

What Planetside distinguished to any other fps back in the day was not the simple
fact that you could shoot people in different ways but that you had different tactical
possibilities to influence a fight short of shooting every single enemy in the face.
It's called in-depth gameplay which PS2 apparently seems to be lacking as of now.

Name exactly what you saw in E3 that gave you that impression.

[stargazer093]

oh...this thread again...

anyway, time for an old chinese gaming forum slogan:"you want to play you play you don`t want to play you go away"
:groovy:

[Eyeklops]

I don't think PS2 is "losing" tactics. Think of it as a "shifting" tactical importance to other areas. The infantry, or shooter, part of the game looks to be much more tactical than PS1.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Name exactly what you saw in E3 that gave you that impression.

If I had to guess, it was the hack point -> hold point 'til cap -> kill players -> repeat gameplay. There was nothing else available in that demo that was capable of altering the flow of combat.

Admittedly, the base had been turned into an arena deathmatch, so there wasn't much going on in that regard. Things would've been different if equipment and vehicle terminals had been available in the base itself, for example.

[davek]

there will be plenty tactical game play with this community and its outfits it doesn't mater whether theres gen rooms or hot spots where there is not strategy we will make some

[captainkapautz]

Someone get me a facepalm Picture to edit into later!

How about:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EM74HdawdfQ/T6_I2PFD3pI/AAAAAAAAB8s/I4Q9YPvFKdw/s1600/tactical_facepalm.jpg

Seems oddly fitting.


OT: For people going "THERE WAS MOAR TO PS1 THAN SHOOTIN PPL IN THE FACE! THERE WUZ TACTRICS!"

Yes, there were different tactics, ALL OF WHICH ENDED IN SOME POOR MOTHERFUCKER GETTING SHOT IN THE FACE.

Take off the nostalgia-tinted glasses, none of your myriad of tactics in PS1 ever took a base without a fight, all they did was make the fight easier for one side, as tactics should.
And so far NOTHING was shown that says that this won't be possible in PS2 as well.

[Kalbuth]

And so far NOTHING was shown that says that this won't be possible in PS2 as well.
So we should not bring up the point because it annoys you, that's it?

I'm reallllly sowwwy that you cannot stand a slight critic on an incoming game.
Pointing out potential flaws as soon as possible is good for the game, not bad, if you really care for PS2, you should know

[ringring]

I don't think PS2 is "losing" tactics. Think of it as a "shifting" tactical importance to other areas. The infantry, or shooter, part of the game looks to be much more tactical than PS1.
How so?

[Bromaxulon]

Those of you who complain that games are easier and dumbed down these days are mostly old time gamers. I been gaming a long time and yea I would tend to agree that alot of mechanics are simplified and the difficulty has decreased.

Problem is that gaming is now mainstream culture, and like most things that were once small with close nit communities gaming has changed to suit the masses.

Back in the day most gamers were well .... Nerds, who generally enjoyed things that were relativity complex like say games like x-com or ADnD. Now that things are mainstream you get all those people who used to make fun of us gamer nerds now playing themselves and well were the money goes so goes design choices. Online culture has seemingly devolved from the helpful common interest communities of old to the current Troll fest we have today. It's a sad state of affair but it generally what happens when things get popular. </end rant>

Anyways in relation to the OP PS2 gameplay is streamlined, however, tactical play is just as relevant as it always has been, just with a little less focus on logistics (ant runs for ex) to more combat oriented tactics. Logi is still around though it centered on the resource system and is more strategic, and they will be adding more content as the game grows, meaning If thy attract a large share of the market with the BF style gameplay then they will have the time And funds to develop things for us more strategically minded players, ie lodestar as example. Plus as the COD players get more into the game it is possible that their sensibilities will change as well making them more interested in the deeper levels of play which will surely be added as patches etc.

Only time will tell but as it stands this game looks cooler then the witches titty and I for one cant wait to play.

[McFeeble]

I agree some of the new changes do seem daunting, but I am willing to give them a try before I decide anything. My primary concern is the longevity of the game, with what appears to be more a zerg centric meta game, supported by missions and hex influence on hack times.
In ps1, I enjoyed the zerg and all of the fun that went with trying everything out initially, but soon grew tired of this, as it was just repeat with a slightly different walk from the tower/AMS. I then joined foehammer (forget outfit name, sorry) spec ops group, doing cc holds and gen take downs, close enough to the action to attract opposition and this really was great fun. I dont see how this is possible this time round hence mentioning it as a concern.

[Saifoda]

So we should not bring up the point because it annoys you, that's it?

I'm reallllly sowwwy that you cannot stand a slight critic on an incoming game.
Pointing out potential flaws as soon as possible is good for the game, not bad, if you really care for PS2, you should know



So basically the argument is this: "We saw an E3 construction of a game that's barely coming out of alpha right now, and the parts of that demo that annoyed me were the parts of it that I didn't get to see." And by that I mean everything he was talking about with the tactics, the massive meta-game of base captures; so apparently all of that is now destroyed because of an E3 demo? Get real. And you know what? It is annoying because it's an unfounded criticism. Might as well have added in a complaint about the MAX units being able to drive/fly vehicles (which, unlike the other complaints, actually WAS something that was present in the demo).




E3 Construction.


Wait.

For.

Beta.




EDIT: And really if you want all the tactics and strategy, there's a little franchise called Total War that has that in ******; go play that for a while.

[ringring]

I agree some of the new changes do seem daunting, but I am willing to give them a try before I decide anything. My primary concern is the longevity of the game, with what appears to be more a zerg centric meta game, supported by missions and hex influence on hack times.
In ps1, I enjoyed the zerg and all of the fun that went with trying everything out initially, but soon grew tired of this, as it was just repeat with a slightly different walk from the tower/AMS. I then joined foehammer (forget outfit name, sorry) spec ops group, doing cc holds and gen take downs, close enough to the action to attract opposition and this really was great fun. I dont see how this is possible this time round hence mentioning it as a concern.

It's a fair concern. For me the game has to be multi-layered otherwise I'll lose interest and I think that's true for most other people also.

But I don't know enough as present to know that it isn't.

[MrBloodworth]

He has a point. As it stands, there is only one tactic to control a base. Capture points. Ps1 offered many more avenues and base systems to disrupt, or shift how the base was being captured or defended.

NTU/Ant/Drains, Generator, spawn point removal ( Through destruction or Gen dropping/Hacking ), Hacking disruptions, Equipment denial... Nonexistent in PS2.

I believe his point, and one I share, is that its about the options to approach a situation, and form a plan accordingly, at a squad or empire level. Things like having one squad drop a gen, or defend it/Repair it ETC... Many of those moments, and the possible comebacks or counters are missing.

Those elements of base capture created some really exciting moments that many remember to this day.

PS: Also, where are the doors?

[captainkapautz]

So we should not bring up the point because it annoys you, that's it?

I'm reallllly sowwwy that you cannot stand a slight critic on an incoming game.
Pointing out potential flaws as soon as possible is good for the game, not bad, if you really care for PS2, you should know

"OHMYGOD TACTICS R DED" is anything but a slight critic.

If you really care about PS2, you wouldn't start judging the game by a simple video, but instead wait for the soon to come beta when you can actually have a real hands on.

[Kalbuth]

So basically the argument is this: "We saw an E3 construction of a game that's barely coming out of alpha right now, and the parts of that demo that annoyed me were the parts of it that I didn't get to see." And by that I mean everything he was talking about with the tactics, the massive meta-game of base captures; so apparently all of that is now destroyed because of an E3 demo? Get real. And you know what? It is annoying because it's an unfounded criticism. Might as well have added in a complaint about the MAX units being able to drive/fly vehicles (which, unlike the other complaints, actually WAS something that was present in the demo).




E3 Construction.


Wait.

For.

Beta.




EDIT: And really if you want all the tactics and strategy, there's a little franchise called Total War that has that in ******; go play that for a while.
Forget about his rant and testicle thing about the demo.
Thing is, we have zero info on what is going to be put on, true, and everything, everything that is emphasized avoids the subject. The publicity is all around the mass fighting aspect, it's all around the zerg. So yes, it's a little itching for those that enjoyed the totality of PS1, not just the zerg :) So, guess what, they ask questions about it.

As for your EDIT, Planetside is a game where, fortunately, I don't have to change game to achieve both tactics and shooter. It's funny how you kind of destroy your main argument with it, tbh. "We have no clue, be faithful and wait", followed by "if you want that, go away anyway". Well, if that's the answer, then yes, I'm going to continue annoying you with my questions

[Raymac]

Clearly there are changes from Planetside 1, and I can see how some might interpret those changes as "dumbing down the game".

For me, when I look at things like the hex system, the resource system, the changes to the bases, etc. it's hard for me not to see that they are adding MORE tactical elements. No longer will we simply be hopping from 1 base SOI to the next ignoring all the other territory. No longer will ever base and tower fight be in the same stairwell over and over. No longer will vehicles be free.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and in a game with so many features, everyone is not going to like everything. However, I think it is intellectually dishonest to completely ignore all the tactical elements being added to the game, and using a "Planetside Light" build from E3 as the basis for judging the tactical side of the game.

[Access]

"OHMYGOD TACTICS R DED" is anything but a slight critic.

If you really care about PS2, you wouldn't start judging the game by a simple video, but instead wait for the soon to come beta when you can actually have a real hands on.

You still seem to have the patience and trust in developers that I prolly lost a good
while ago. The time I judge a game after buying it is way over. Drastic gameplay
changes like adding Generators/Hacking-disruption of base systems like radars and so
on wont be happening over night. Even some concerns stated in a beta build wont
be addressed in a rush. And as such will be put down the pipeline of content patches
to come. Later...

[proxy]

You completely misunderstood what he was saying. Games like cod are cash cows which churn out the same game every year for money, so other games are trying to cash in on these players. By making their games simpler and easier to understand(run,gun,fun) it will attract these players hence giving them potentially more money. Games are getting easier and easier to play and it is in general a dumbing down. Its a shame they cant make games hard anymore, where it is challenging to play.

Aside from more guns, some fluff and stat tracking, the TDM of CoD and Halflife 1 are basically the same. How are these games considered new school when you could argue CoD esque games are MORE complex now?

[megamold]

Those of you who complain that games are easier and dumbed down these days are mostly old time gamers. I been gaming a long time and yea I would tend to agree that alot of mechanics are simplified and the difficulty has decreased.

Problem is that gaming is now mainstream culture, and like most things that were once small with close nit communities gaming has changed to suit the masses.

Back in the day most gamers were well .... Nerds, who generally enjoyed things that were relativity complex like say games like x-com or ADnD. Now that things are mainstream you get all those people who used to make fun of us gamer nerds now playing themselves and well were the money goes so goes design choices. Online culture has seemingly devolved from the helpful common interest communities of old to the current Troll fest we have today. It's a sad state of affair but it generally what happens when things get popular. </end rant>

Anyways in relation to the OP PS2 gameplay is streamlined, however, tactical play is just as relevant as it always has been, just with a little less focus on logistics (ant runs for ex) to more combat oriented tactics. Logi is still around though it centered on the resource system and is more strategic, and they will be adding more content as the game grows, meaning If thy attract a large share of the market with the BF style gameplay then they will have the time And funds to develop things for us more strategically minded players, ie lodestar as example. Plus as the COD players get more into the game it is possible that their sensibilities will change as well making them more interested in the deeper levels of play which will surely be added as patches etc.

Only time will tell but as it stands this game looks cooler then the witches titty and I for one cant wait to play.

yeah i pretty much agree with this 100%

[Dairian]

ARE YOU NUTZ! I think your just trolling. With the new map system its going to take more organization than PS1. They have talked about taking down shield generators and spawn points. And as for the terms there really isn't a need to take them down because you will spawn with your gear. This is needed to speed up game play and since the TTK is lower do you really think you will have time to access a term with someone shooting at you?

There will be plenty of Large Outfits that will be very organized. And my experience of planetside 1 were still lots of people just pressing instant action and funneling themselves into a fight without any organization. This is just ALPHA not release and if your so disappointed just don't play the game.

[KTNApollo]

Wall of text with no TLDR? Tsk tsk...

[asdar]

I don't see ANY dumbing.

The way the devs discussed the bases there's going to be bases on flat plains and bases in mountains, they even talked about different methods of taking a base on Day 3. They weren't all domination.

I played PS and don't even understand what the OP would want except maybe he needs a time machine so he can replay the same game that's already gone. Is the only thing you want destroyable spawn pts, generator rooms and then you'll be happy?

You're very short on details about what you think the new game should be like and long on drama. What do you want to change from the demo?

Dumbing down a game to me is making it easy to play, if watching the demo's showed anything it was that newcomers are going to have a huge learning curve for PS2. If they left the close spawns in the game and let max units get in any vehicles that would be dumbing it down. PS2 is clearly more complex than PS was so I don't think this post is valid, except as a view of concern over the possibility of dumbing.

Heck, the holding resource points alone is going to mean that the map is full of strategic possibilities. They've got 3 factions, but also a kind of 3 way Air-tank-infantry loadout that's got tactical possibilities.

I understand worrying over details, but I can't see any concrete reason yet to think this game will be anything but better than PS.

[Duddy]

I think it is far too early to draw conclusions from what we have seen.

It has already been stated that different bases have different layouts and it has been implied that different objectives will be available for different bases (even of the same type).

I'd have to say from what we have seen though is that gameplay has been improved from the previous.

Consider that indoor fights in PS1 wer mostly meat-grinders and that vehicular gameplay usually ceased to be of importance as soon as you took the CY. The new model opens up options for infantry and allows for vehicles to be involved at all stages of a base fight, or at least this seems the case at an AMP station.

But once again, I find myself in disbelief about how we talk about parts of gameplay that were potentially derogatory as being key to the franchise.

Generators, whilst offering some epic close call moments, often led to some rather stale gameplay. Blow the gen, clear the base out, now wait 15 minutes for the cap.

It may be true that it was a strategic option, but it was a terrible gameplay option. I have faith that the devs will be able to deliver new strategic options that actually add to gameplay as opposed to removing from it.

This said, I am keen to see hacking/disruption play more of a role as we have sene little to none of this so far.

[maradine]

You think this thread is fun, just wait until they actually have something concrete to complain about. It will be the nerfocalypse before you know it.

Supplemental, I'm shocked by the number of people who seem to feel like shitty UX and non-intuitive gameplay is somehow a virtue.

The competition should be with those other guys in the helmets, not the game itself. Last I checked, they're still showing up to take territory. Has your "dumbing down" made that any easier?

[captainkapautz]

You still seem to have the patience and trust in developers that I prolly lost a good
while ago. The time I judge a game after buying it is way over...

That's as far as I read, kinda invalidates your whole arguement.

[basti]

I beg to differ a lil bit. PS1 was also awesome because the saving ANT run was a thrilling moment when running through ennemy lines, the gen hold against big opposition was stressfull, and was denying ennemy tanks, etc...

Which existed because the NTU mecanism was in place, the generator system was in place, all that which is not setup by the players, but the game itself.

And I've not seen such objective not necesserily centered on the base capture, but all that was setup around the actual capture, and was a side objective helping the global one.
Perhaps there will be, we can only hope so, but I've yet to see that. It's not stupid to bring up the point


True. Well i remember them saying they still have generators, but they work different now (powering certain areas of the base only? )

Guess we have to wait and see once more, or get a Higby in here. :D

[Rbstr]

Ah more "dumbing down" arguments. Really, they've simply become a kind of unintentional joke. Who can find the most inane and nebulous reasons to freeze video game development a half-decade ago? Fight!

[ArmedZealot]

Ah more "dumbing down" arguments. Really, they've simply become a kind of unintentional joke. Who can find the most inane and nebulous reasons to freeze video game development a half-decade ago? Fight!

We can't play inventory tetris anymore! They've taken away my freedom! They've dumbed the game down! RRRRRRAAAAAGGGGGGEEEEEEEE!!!!

[maradine]

Ah more "dumbing down" arguments. Really, they've simply become a kind of unintentional joke. Who can find the most inane and nebulous reasons to freeze video game development a half-decade ago? Fight!

Head bob destroyed the purity of the FPS experience and dumbed it down. THIS ISNT REAL LIFE ITS A GAME

[ArmedZealot]

Head bob destroyed the purity of the FPS experience and dumbed it down. THIS ISNT REAL LIFE ITS A GAME

Vehicle E/E animations aren't in the game anymore! My immersion is broken! THIS SHOULD BE A REAL LIFE GAME!

[maradine]

Joystick users better not have an advantage over my mouse and keyboard in dogfights THIS ISNT REAL LIFE ITS A GAME

edit: dude, don't QFT me when I'm being FPS hipster sarcastic.

[MrBloodworth]

Holy crap, look at all the trolling. This seems to happen every time someone posts Valid concerns that are not just blind praise.

[proxy]

ARE YOU NUTZ! I think your just trolling. With the new map system its going to take more organization than PS1. They have talked about taking down shield generators and spawn points. And as for the terms there really isn't a need to take them down because you will spawn with your gear. This is needed to speed up game play and since the TTK is lower do you really think you will have time to access a term with someone shooting at you?

There will be plenty of Large Outfits that will be very organized. And my experience of planetside 1 were still lots of people just pressing instant action and funneling themselves into a fight without any organization. This is just ALPHA not release and if your so disappointed just don't play the game.

Listen to this guy.

[Verruna]

I love PS1, but really nothing i've seen thus far really indicates to me that PS2 will be any less strategic than the first. Its a bit sad the general NTU/Ant/Gen system is being changed/removed.. as it was a interesting gameplay mechanic, but otherwise - i just don't see it being radically different than PS1 gameplay wise. Their adding a bunch of modernized crap to PS2 like killcams, stats, and camos ect. But that doesn't effect much on the strategic side of things.

No one should make assumptions based off e3's singular 3-way base deathmatch fest, what amounts to a single base area with 3 uncappable towers directly surrounding said base. The simple truth is we don't know all that much in detail about PS2's resource/base capture systems and how we can exploit those strategically.

Regardless, i don't want a completely washed down planetside for braindeads, but some compromises must be made to ensure Planetside 2 being absolutely successful. I'll be throwing alot of feedback at them come beta, when i know more.

[captainkapautz]

Holy crap, look at all the trolling. This seems to happen every time someone posts Valid concerns that are not just blind praise.

Yeah, a valid concern would be "I'm concerned that my PC might not be able to run the game.", on the other hand "I can't see any elaborate tactics in the E3-only 3way-clusterfuck of noobs, so this game fails." isn't a valid concern.
It's just bullshit.

[maradine]

Holy crap, look at all the trolling. This seems to happen every time someone posts Valid concerns that are not just blind praise.

The concern can be summarized as "the e3-specific mockup of a pre-beta game looks and feels nothing like the production game i love that was written a decade ago."

The concerns are only valid in the sense that fear of asteroid impact after looking through your Fisher Price toy telescope is valid. Yeah, it could be a world of crap, but you weren't exactly drawing conclusions from valid inputs.

[Hamma]

This thread is not even remotely constructive. Please at least attempt to make it useful otherwise I will be closing it out.

[MrBloodworth]

I didn't read it that way. But yes, his method of delivery was bad. But I was able to see past that stuff and understand what he means.

The trolling is just trolling however, and its the same people yet again doing it. It really shuts down any discussion, which I believe is the goal I guess.

[proxy]

Joystick users better not have an advantage over my mouse and keyboard in dogfights THIS ISNT REAL LIFE ITS A GAME

edit: dude, don't QFT me when I'm being FPS hipster sarcastic.

Can't tell if ironic?

[maradine]

Can't tell if ironic?

Self-abasement is the most satisfying form or abasement.

[Bokkaveli]

Looked pretty incredible to me and LIGHTYEARS ahead of the competition.

Don't trip on the door on your way out.

This!!!

Tired of the negative Nancy nitpick crowd. I'll wait until "I" play the Beta then come to a conclusion on whether "I" like it or not. Different strokes for different folks....why try to make others dislike the game just because you disagree with certain elements of the game?

Pretty simple concept...If you don't like the game don't play it...No need to tell the rest of the world why you're not going to play it..because quite simply people who enjoy the game or will enjoy the game could care less about your objections :)

In Lak'ech'

[erunion]

People providing circular logic that flaws don't exist but if they did exist they wouldn't be flaws anyways.
Mod determining thread to be non-constructive.

Oh god. Its SWTOR all over again!

/END OF LINE

At what point in time did the internets decide that supporting a game required blind faith/denial/personal attacks?

But seriously, the devs have said many times that they want feedback and interest. So what makes you bunch the planetside thought police?

[Madcut]

Like others have said, you need to wait for beta. I think it's vital that veteran PS players get into beta and scream like hell for what they want. So far PS2 is not far enough into development for it to not allow tactical content to be implemented. I think SOE's decision to incorporate more FPS elements is great, but as they have said themselves, a FPS doesn't have to compromise any of its elements in a MMO environment. The same should go for the other way around; a MMO doesn't have to compromise any of its elements in an FPS environment. Having a solid FPS framework, with customizations and all the glitter of modern FPSs, will attract more players, which is great. More players means more money which (hopefully) means more content. In addition, if SOE wants to restrict some of the content like the amount of playable vehicles and continents, that's fine by me. It means the game will get out the door quicker and the limited content will be more polished.

BUT... Tactical content is not something that should be removed. I think removing some things like ANTs is fine in replacement of a different resource control hex mechanic. But there should be more focused control rooms and special objectives that create tactical play. I don't want to see PS2 just a matter of running in circles around a base trying to keep (above ground) control points. That would be too similar to BF and other modern non-MMO FPSs.

But again, that's why the players need to be in beta and make a lot of noise, constantly. The developers have seemed very welcome to player feedback, and I doubt that will stop in beta.

Also, I don't think the original Planetside had a huge amount of tactical content. It just had a set amount that seemed to work, really well. I guess I think SOE can implement minimal, yet well developed tactical content and make PS2 rock, with all of the glitz taken from modern FPS games.

[p0intman]

As most old-school gamers I was growing more and more sceptical towards the
gaming industry over the past years, since it seemed to hit a serious dead end
in terms of innovation or evolution of their games. I was getting bored, annoyed,
and finally angry at how the industry doesnt even care to try anymore.
Even more annoying is the fact that they gloriously succeeded in constantly
dumbing down their customers to a point where there is nothing more important
about a game but the name of the frenchise and technological advancements of
a games engine.

But than, at last, a deep and unspoken hope was answered last year with the
official announcement of Planetside 2. Hell yeah! I survived the drought-stricken
years of boring killgames, horrid rpgs and empty and lifeless mmos to embrace the
goddess called Planetside once again to entertain me for years to come.
Or so I thought...

I was excited and thrilled over every video we got to see, every stream,
interview and information we got to fantasize with. Well... that is until I got
to see the gameplay at the E3 livestream the last few days. And there it was,
like a lump on the testicles, the slowly rising realisation that things might
not work out as perfectly as you imagined.

After seeing the gameplay footage these past days I'm actually pretty amazed
how most of the so called "veteran" players tend to ignore the fact that nearly
all of the tactical gameplay, which was pretty much the backbone of Planetside,
is close to nonexistant in the sequel...

And what we are left with today is roughly:

1. killing stuff with a handgun
2. killing stuff with a vehicle
3. killing stuff with an aircraft
4. killing stuff with landing droppods on their heads
5. domination gametype

I'm very dissappointed since as of now the game got no kind of tactical depth
what so ever compared to the original. Without tactical hotspots like command
centers, generator rooms or even destroyable spawn points/equipment
terminals I honestly dont see a need for any planned out tactical gameplay
anymore which made Planetside the game we all loved. All we get is a massive
killgame as seen ever so often before.

Character/Weapon/Vehicle customization does not make a game interesting, the
gameplay does. And it is lacking way behind of what any honest veteran Planetside
player should expect it to be.
I dont really like what is advertised in the visual customization department either.
It is seriously lackluster and behind on what should be possible with the engine
or even is appealing enough to even pay for it. For example the oh so boring
different 20th century camo skins... why...?! this is not CoD MoH or hatever,
this is the 28th century, a time appropriate customization should not be too much
to ask for. I really hope theres much more interesting customization planned until
release, like nanowired or battleworn armor, since I honestly cant see the game
manage its finances with just the booster sells in the long run.

Dont get me wrong, I love the engine, the fast paced action, skies burning up
from airbattles, falling debree and the design and textures of the models. (the
vehicle and base ones, the weapons on the other hand are really in need of some
workover sound/modelwise)

But please, why the freck does it have to be a so damn simplified Planetside?

Welcome to the de-evolution of games, where the developers nowadays accredit
the avarage gamer the attention span of a squirrel. (which is according to a
random internet person up to 4 minutes)
:domotwak:

I agree entirely that the tactical element of things is sorely lacking, without question. I'm deeply concerned that this is just copying COD and BF franchises.


People providing circular logic that flaws don't exist but if they did exist they wouldn't be flaws anyways.
Mod determining thread to be non-constructive.

Oh god. Its SWTOR all over again!

/END OF LINE

At what point in time did the internets decide that supporting a game required blind faith/denial/personal attacks?

But seriously, the devs have said many times that they want feedback and interest. So what makes you bunch the planetside thought police?


Anyone who says you need to be apart of the groupthink to be a planetside fan.. aint a planetside fan. Dun worry bout them. We've been through worse.

[basti]

People providing circular logic that flaws don't exist but if they did exist they wouldn't be flaws anyways.
Mod determining thread to be non-constructive.

Oh god. Its SWTOR all over again!

/END OF LINE

At what point in time did the internets decide that supporting a game required blind faith/denial/personal attacks?

But seriously, the devs have said many times that they want feedback and interest. So what makes you bunch the planetside thought police?

Look at what is under my name. That makes me the police.


But i agree, feedback is good, and feedback can be postive or negative. But in any way, it needs to be constructive.

And right now, this turns into a debate about giving feedback, as well as some random jokes every now and then.


If you want to keep the thread, get back on topic. I would hate to close it, because it got quite the potential for a good discussion.


Actually, let me start it:


We all have seen the E3 footage, we all have seen the randoms running around, but also the organized attempts of the QA folks (those Gal drops and Tank collums).
Now, what i see there is potential. Those QA folks are awesome at testing certain stuff, but clearly they never tried to play together in a organized team. They simply lacked the training and expirience to pull off what others have done in PS1. Maybe they didnt even try, who knows. Yet, as said, i see potential. I see potential for 60+ big Tank raids, Massive Massive Air raids, Gigantic Gal Drops, organized base captures etc etc etc. I see massive potential for Outfits going out by themself (large or small), Outfits working together, Leaders leading the Zerg, leaders leading Random squads and everything else i did not think of right now.

Does anyone not see that potential?

[p0intman]

We all have seen the E3 footage, we all have seen the randoms running around, but also the organized attempts of the QA folks (those Gal drops and Tank collums).
Now, what i see there is potential. Those QA folks are awesome at testing certain stuff, but clearly they never tried to play together in a organized team. They simply lacked the training and expirience to pull off what others have done in PS1. Maybe they didnt even try, who knows. Yet, as said, i see potential. I see potential for 60+ big Tank raids, Massive Massive Air raids, Gigantic Gal Drops, organized base captures etc etc etc. I see massive potential for Outfits going out by themself (large or small), Outfits working together, Leaders leading the Zerg, leaders leading Random squads and everything else i did not think of right now.

Does anyone not see that potential?
But there lies the problem, there aren't any spawn tubes to send max crashes at. There aren't any gens to kill to deny vehicle or troop spawning with. There aren't any mechanical emplacements as it were to make it a viable option. I don't have a base to drain for a distraction.

[wasdie]

You have to think about these features that you consider "hardcore" and ask yourself if they were hardcore because they actually added a really strong layer to the gameplay, or just added some tedious elements that you were forced to use. More often than not with older games, the complexity is over stated by the core audience and the gameplay mechanics just brought tedium with them.

That said, this E3 demo is nothing like what Planetside 2 is going to be. This was like Planetside 2: Battlefield edition. They had to customize so many aspects of the game so that they could effectively demo it in 10-15 minute play sessions. Planetside is best played over hours, not minutes.

[Kalbuth]

This thread is not even remotely constructive. Please at least attempt to make it useful otherwise I will be closing it out.

Well, I'm sorry but pple like Raymac, Basti and such are being constructive about a concern raised, not all the OP fault that a bunch of trolls cannot stand anything said negatively about PS2.
It's like after E3, the job is done and everything is perfect.... Be in order, or begone.

So, to be constructive, the tactical replacement seen so far is hex + resources, which is indeed at great advantage over the lattice system, if it is actually possible to starve ennemy empire from important resources, and not just annoy him a bit, which will be seen in beta.
Where is there talk about generators and such?
Or any replacement, in fact. I'm personnally not attached to ANT runs, gens and such, they are just tools. Anything that can replace is ok in my book. Current state of the game looks empty in this department atm, that is all.


Awww, and btw, about the tedious part... it's not going to affect the fast FPS part of the game. At all. There will be plenty of places to zerg, I don't know why people get so defensive at the idea of having some tactical objectives

[Kurtz]

Wait for beta but be prepared to bitch like crazy after.

[captainkapautz]

But there lies the problem, there aren't any spawn tubes to send max crashes at. There aren't any gens to kill to deny vehicle or troop spawning with. There aren't any mechanical emplacements as it were to make it a viable option. I don't have a base to drain for a distraction.

There are spawntubes to send MAX-crashes at, they weren't really used because of E3-only garrisons.

I have to admit, this thread has shown, at least to me, that the whole idea of creating a battlefield for E3 only may have been a nice idea, but in hindsight it probably wasn't that great, because now we have all these people who have the wrong idea about how PS2 will play out.

I gotta say, having beta going for E3 would've probably been better, because then the whole restriction of 1 base only wouldn't have been needed, because you would've had enough people for "real Planetside".

But that's just my 2 cents.

[Xyntech]

We all have seen the E3 footage, we all have seen the randoms running around, but also the organized attempts of the QA folks (those Gal drops and Tank collums).
Now, what i see there is potential. Those QA folks are awesome at testing certain stuff, but clearly they never tried to play together in a organized team. They simply lacked the training and expirience to pull off what others have done in PS1. Maybe they didnt even try, who knows. Yet, as said, i see potential. I see potential for 60+ big Tank raids, Massive Massive Air raids, Gigantic Gal Drops, organized base captures etc etc etc. I see massive potential for Outfits going out by themself (large or small), Outfits working together, Leaders leading the Zerg, leaders leading Random squads and everything else i did not think of right now.

Does anyone not see that potential?

I see it. The game is significantly different in several ways from the first game though. The first game is the only really accurate thing we have to compare PS2 to, but the sequel is different in enough ways that we won't really be able to know how some of these changes will work together until we actually try some teamplay and deep tactics ourselves.

I did notice a couple of things amidst all of the random killing and dying in the demo though.

1) Skilled players who had experience with the game were very effective. Clearly the game isn't catering too heavily to casuals. Noobs may get a few more kills than they would in the first game, but it won't be like Call of Deathstreak where it artificially tries to help bad players win more often than they should. Skill will still win most 1 on 1 fights, as it should.

2) Team play is still awesome and devastating. With bases being as large as they are, random unorganized players aren't going to be able to do shit against a well organized strike force. The game may be providing more options for players to play solo, but it's also got a few systems in place to help funnel players towards realizing how awesome teamplay is (mission system, VOIP, etc).

I will agree with basti's earlier assessment that most of what made Planetside great was the players. The core scale elements are still in place, and team work and skill have not been marginalized, so the rest is up to us to work out.

But during beta and beyond, we can certainly continue to suggest ideas that promote more interesting and diverse gameplay. Just remember that most ideas have an upside and a downside. A big and important goal of Planetside 2 is to have and keep a large playerbase. If they have to make some changes to appeal to modern shooter fans to get them in the door, I think that's fine, as long as there are plenty of alternate options that are superior for team work.

Edit: Also, keep an open mind to the fact that this is NOT Planetside. This is Planetside 2. It is a completely different game that shares the scale, persistence, factions, and combined arms gameplay of the first game. Beyond that, we shouldn't necessarily expect any specific tactic or role to carry over 1 to 1 from the first game.

I have no doubt that there will still be things like MAX crashes, but they will probably be used in rather different ways than they were in the first game.

We will probably be losing some well loved things from the first game, but there will be many new things to love. Just keep an open perspective if you can.

[Access]

This thread is not even remotely constructive. Please at least attempt to make it useful otherwise I will be closing it out.

Forums were once called "Discussion Boards" but thats a thing of the past I guess.

PS2 has a huge resource in PS1 content-wise, yet I dont see any jaw dropping
improvement to the first one short of the engine.
If I'm getting shown a Demo of a game, a developer wants to show off his games
strongpoints obviously. PS2 set his focus on the engine (which looks really really
nice) and the massive combat with different methods of gunning ones enemies down.
Planetside was different, and great parts of that are nowhere to be seen. And I don't
talk about the Demo fight at E3. It's quite obvious it was there to show off some
skirmish and the engine. PS2 got the tools for massive combat, I never doubted
that. How can it not with being a pimped up PS1. I pretty much still hope there
are more mechanics to capturing a base than simple domination/ctf style with
meaningful and disruptive objectives to capture short of cutting down the capture
time of a base.

I am buying the game without question, I'm simply addressing my concern about
the lackluster tactical objectives in the game, since SOE seems to have set their
initial focus for the game on "keeping it simple, keeping it big".

But apparently the majority of gamers these days tends to have blind unbased
faith in developers and yet forget it is them that want to play these games at
sometime.

Got at least some useful feedback here, but I once again am reminded why it's
mostly a hassle addressing concerns and bringing up critizism about games at the
internetz.

bb cya ingame

:domotwak:

[Sabot]

That said, this E3 demo is nothing like what Planetside 2 is going to be. This was like Planetside 2: Battlefield edition. They had to customize so many aspects of the game so that they could effectively demo it in 10-15 minute play sessions. Planetside is best played over hours, not minutes.

This.

Honestly... how are you even going to play tacticly when people come and go every 10 mins? Don't judge PS2 gameplay and tactical elements on the E3 streams. People trying it for the first time, most of them were probably not even that familiar with the controls on the stations.

So... no gen drops you say? Well I say that more capture points is > gen drops and tube max crash... you can still do all of these things! It's just a bit different now.. instead of attacking a generator and holding it, you attack a capture point and hold it... max crash a capture point if you want... drop from a gal on the point that is on the oposite side of the base is basically the same thing as a BD drop. Difference now is that you actually have to hold all of them to cap the base... which requiers even more coordination and tactics from your faction than before.. not just drop the gen and wait... or backhack every other base on the cont with one infil and then gogogo.

One thing that I am going to miss though are the ANT runs... NTU were great for clearing up stalemates at bases, but as defending faction you could still avoid it with skill and luck.

[The Kush]

This is my biggest concern as well. The tatical/teamwork made Planetside epic. I'm going to wait till beta before I get worried. The E3 show was not accurate how the game will play out.

[I SandRock]

As most old-school gamers I was growing more and more sceptical towards the
gaming industry over the past years, since it seemed to hit a serious dead end
in terms of innovation or evolution of their games. I was getting bored, annoyed,
and finally angry at how the industry doesnt even care to try anymore.
Even more annoying is the fact that they gloriously succeeded in constantly
dumbing down their customers to a point where there is nothing more important
about a game but the name of the frenchise and technological advancements of
a games engine.

But than, at last, a deep and unspoken hope was answered last year with the
official announcement of Planetside 2. Hell yeah! I survived the drought-stricken
years of boring killgames, horrid rpgs and empty and lifeless mmos to embrace the
goddess called Planetside once again to entertain me for years to come.
Or so I thought...

I was excited and thrilled over every video we got to see, every stream,
interview and information we got to fantasize with. Well... that is until I got
to see the gameplay at the E3 livestream the last few days. And there it was,
like a lump on the testicles, the slowly rising realisation that things might
not work out as perfectly as you imagined.

After seeing the gameplay footage these past days I'm actually pretty amazed
how most of the so called "veteran" players tend to ignore the fact that nearly
all of the tactical gameplay, which was pretty much the backbone of Planetside,
is close to nonexistant in the sequel...

And what we are left with today is roughly:

1. killing stuff with a handgun
2. killing stuff with a vehicle
3. killing stuff with an aircraft
4. killing stuff with landing droppods on their heads
5. domination gametype

I'm very dissappointed since as of now the game got no kind of tactical depth
what so ever compared to the original. Without tactical hotspots like command
centers, generator rooms or even destroyable spawn points/equipment
terminals I honestly dont see a need for any planned out tactical gameplay
anymore which made Planetside the game we all loved. All we get is a massive
killgame as seen ever so often before.

Character/Weapon/Vehicle customization does not make a game interesting, the
gameplay does. And it is lacking way behind of what any honest veteran Planetside
player should expect it to be.
I dont really like what is advertised in the visual customization department either.
It is seriously lackluster and behind on what should be possible with the engine
or even is appealing enough to even pay for it. For example the oh so boring
different 20th century camo skins... why...?! this is not CoD MoH or hatever,
this is the 28th century, a time appropriate customization should not be too much
to ask for. I really hope theres much more interesting customization planned until
release, like nanowired or battleworn armor, since I honestly cant see the game
manage its finances with just the booster sells in the long run.

Dont get me wrong, I love the engine, the fast paced action, skies burning up
from airbattles, falling debree and the design and textures of the models. (the
vehicle and base ones, the weapons on the other hand are really in need of some
workover sound/modelwise)

But please, why the freck does it have to be a so damn simplified Planetside?

Welcome to the de-evolution of games, where the developers nowadays accredit
the avarage gamer the attention span of a squirrel. (which is according to a
random internet person up to 4 minutes)
:domotwak:

You're right. And I agree completely. Don't listen to the religious fanatics who think the planetside 2 devs are Gods who won't do anything wrong. I saw that with Bioware and SWTOR. "Wait for beta" yeah, it's too late. They won't make sweeping changes during beta. The fact closed beta is only a few weeks says enough.

It's dumbed down. Planetside was full of little details which made a huge impact on tactics. It was simple, yet very complex at the same time. They took out all the complex stuff and now you're left with:
Battlefield 4: Online

Fewer vehicles, much less complex bases, simpler cert system, simpler gameplay, less innovative mechanics (no continent lockouts etc.)


Yes maybe I sound overly skeptical and pessimistic. But got to keep things in balance here with all the posivists.


Fact is the majority of recent releases have all been letdowns, one after the other. I still think Planetside 2 will be a major success, but thats because even this basic form of what Planetside use to be is to this day unique and innovative. But it seems only a shadow of what was Planetside.

My hope is that this is the 'base game' and in a few years they will have expanded, more sandbox elements, more complex base designs and ways to capture them, more vehicles, etc.



PS. I also think Hamma is wrong in saying this isn't constructive. There is plenty of feedback in here. Just because it's critical doesn't make it unconstructive. All the fanboy threads saying how awesome the game is are unconstructive.

[erunion]

Now, what i see there is potential. Those QA folks are awesome at testing certain stuff, but clearly they never tried to play together in a organized team. They simply lacked the training and expirience to pull off what others have done in PS1. Maybe they didnt even try, who knows. Yet, as said, i see potential. I see potential for 60+ big Tank raids, Massive Massive Air raids, Gigantic Gal Drops, organized base captures etc etc etc. I see massive potential for Outfits going out by themself (large or small), Outfits working together, Leaders leading the Zerg, leaders leading Random squads and everything else i did not think of right now.


Its not an organizational issue. Its a game mechanics issue.

Planetside 2's game play should not only be second-to-second, it should also be calculated. That includes both how you capture points and consequences of doing so. Without those elements, its game play will grow stale just as fast as BF3 or MW3.

[Midgetrune]

i really think saying this before beta is jumping the gun a bit don't you?

[Purple]

im super glad not to have gen rooms. all they did was end awesome battles because some outfit leader decided it was taking to long.

[Landtank]

Forums were once called "Discussion Boards" but thats a thing of the past I guess.

PS2 has a huge resource in PS1 content-wise, yet I dont see any jaw dropping
improvement to the first one short of the engine.
If I'm getting shown a Demo of a game, a developer wants to show off his games
strongpoints obviously. PS2 set his focus on the engine (which looks really really
nice) and the massive combat with different methods of gunning ones enemies down.
Planetside was different, and great parts of that are nowhere to be seen. And I don't
talk about the Demo fight at E3. It's quite obvious it was there to show off some
skirmish and the engine. PS2 got the tools for massive combat, I never doubted
that. How can it not with being a pimped up PS1. I pretty much still hope there
are more mechanics to capturing a base than simple domination/ctf style with
meaningful and disruptive objectives to capture short of cutting down the capture
time of a base.

I am buying the game without question, I'm simply addressing my concern about
the lackluster tactical objectives in the game, since SOE seems to have set their
initial focus for the game on "keeping it simple, keeping it big".

But apparently the majority of gamers these days tends to have blind unbased
faith in developers and yet forget it is them that want to play these games at
sometime.

Got at least some useful feedback here, but I once again am reminded why it's
mostly a hassle addressing concerns and bringing up critizism about games at the
internetz.

bb cya ingame

:domotwak:

Its not a hassle addressing concerns and bringing up criticisms at all, if you do it nicely. Not saying that you didn't do it nicely, I just got the impression that you don't have to whole picture in mind.

I agree with your concerns, but at the same time I do have faith in the devs, because in the past when I had major concerns they completely eliminated them.

[Xyntech]

SOE seems to have set their
initial focus for the game on "keeping it simple, keeping it big".

PS1 was pretty simple too. A lot of the depth came from the players.

Also, the game is still under heavy development. There is only so much they can show. They can't very well tell us about a feature before they've even decided if it will be going into the game.

The core elements are there. Scale, 3 factions, combined arms, territory control. As long as it has those, a lot of the other stuff is much easier to add and change.

It's pretty hard to make team work not be superior to solo play, and from what I've seen they have worked equally hard on improving the ability for players to play as a team or solo. Solo will be an option, just not very effective. Pretty much how it was in PS1, except easier. Easier to team up, as well as easier to find some instant action solo play if you only have 15 minutes to hop in the game.

Some players may legitimately fear change, but I think the bigger problem is that more players don't grasp the change. They see something from the first game being changed to something else, and they see it as a loss. I believe Planetside 2 will play rather differently than the first game in a lot of ways, but I think a lot of these new elements will work together quite nicely to form a different yet equally rich experience.

Planetside 2 should be simple. Simple to get into. Deep once you get hooked. We still have plenty of development time ahead to help the devs get it right. But right now, the core of Planetside seems to me to be intact in the sequel, and the details don't worry me so much. A lot of that shit just needs to get hammered out in beta, and neither we nor the devs have enough data right now to make final calls on a lot of the issues.

This isn't to say don't discuss, it's more to say, I don't think this "dumbing down" talk gets at the really important issues to discuss. I'm saying a lot of the stuff that gets brought up in these threads is trivial, especially given our limited experience with any games like Planetside 2.

[deltase]

Well the E3 was totally unorganized, so i dont worry so much. Yes it will be better if we know about other methods of capturing a base rather than just A, B and C. What worries me is the fast TTK on everything but i have high hopes that the devs will make it slower.

Now about the gameplay, well, i have not played the original so i cant make accurate statements of how things should be or not. But in my opinion, which may be wrong, the game shapes to be really good. I like that i can spawn on my mates, which was a big problem in the older FPS like bf2, where it was quite difficult to maintain the squad in one place, at least for me. I like that there are many points where we can spawn and coordinate from different directions.
It's all about the right balance, it shouldn't be too fast, but it should NOT be too slow. And this applies not only on the speed of the game but in other things, which will be tweaked in Beta, i hope.

[Mechzz]

Ya, 'twas a mass of journos running about having fun. The odd guy who knew what he was doing, or the Liberator crew that pwned provided the real pointers, and they were great!

On the capture mechanics side, it has also been mentioned that taking specific capture points will deny the defender benefits such as base radar or the like, so even with a base like the one we saw there will be tactical choices, opportunities for squads to take and hold a strategic point.

Looks very promising all in all, I must say

[MrMorton]

there are other ways to cap a base besides hacking terminals,

i know for a fact higby said that, I think it was in the totalbiscuit interviews...

[Gonefshn]

You're right. And I agree completely. Don't listen to the religious fanatics who think the planetside 2 devs are Gods who won't do anything wrong. I saw that with Bioware and SWTOR. "Wait for beta" yeah, it's too late. They won't make sweeping changes during beta. The fact closed beta is only a few weeks says enough.

It's dumbed down. Planetside was full of little details which made a huge impact on tactics. It was simple, yet very complex at the same time. They took out all the complex stuff and now you're left with:
Battlefield 4: Online

Fewer vehicles, much less complex bases, simpler cert system, simpler gameplay, less innovative mechanics (no continent lockouts etc.)

Fewer vehicles, but with many more options to tailor them to fit the roles of the vehicles we are now missing.
What purpose did a deliverer serve in PS1?? it's a "different" light tank essentially cause it was too small to be a transport. People just didn't really use it other than as a combat vehicle.
Skygaurd? Obvious role but you can customize the lightning to work the same way.
Sunderer now has a role where it never really worked last time.
Harasser??? It was useless in combat and only served to transport people and be cool. They still have effective transports and better spawning systems will take the need for fast transports away.

My point is when your talking about more vehicles, most of them didn't fit a "need" because it was just a variant on something else. And in PS2 all these roles are still covered.

LESS COMPLICATED BASES!?!? Are you kidding have you seen a PS1 base it's a square blank ass facility with an outer wall and a completely open courtyard. The inside was almost completely tight little tunnels, that chokepointed your team into a clusterfuck tug of war. The only real tactic was land on the roof or go in the back door. All of which is still possible only with more angles, objectives and levels of verticality to explore. I can't even believe you said the bases are less complicated are you joking?

The cert system in PS1 were big broad categories such as. I want sniper rifles. I want heavy weapons. I want max suites. The new system has probably over 100x the amount of things to cert in with minor adjustments and huge unlocks. The subtle details make PS1's cert sytem look like nothing. Saying the cert system is simpler makes no sense. How is less options and broad choices more complicated?

Simpler gameplay? That's hard to say when you have never played it. I would say the fact that there are more tools and more variety to the weapons and available tools means there is more to think about and adapt too during the game. Also the terrain is actually modeled much better this time around giving you real options for cover and tactics. different areas of the map will offer different advantages to different types of troops and vehicles. PS1 was pretty much the same stuff over and over, besides a bridge (once again still in PS2) and a bridge fight was another giant stalemate killfest. Faster TTK also doesn't make the gameplay simpler, just different. Getting kills takes on a different form of skill, based on position and smart thinking. Its about using cover and being situationaly aware so you always get the first shot.

Less innovative mechanics? In the old game you hacked a base and you took it over. Tower was the same. Every base worked the same and every tower the same. You went to one base, then the next, then the next. Over and over. In PS2 your going to be fighting over resources and spreading your forces over bases as well as land. More things to capture, more ways to do it. There will be more variety in the base capture mechanics as well as different layouts at every base. There are vastly more mechanics in the new Planetside.

[DSxGIIR]

I can agree with most of the things you're saying...I don't like how when you die you select which class you want to play...It feels like I'm playing BF3...i want equipment terminals with the custom load out that I've made for myself not a preset class that I've selected certain weapons for.

Either way I'm a die hard Planetside fan I will be playing this since im a Vet. I'm pretty sure later in the distant future they'll fix alot of things that us old school players want in PS2 that was in PS1. So let just wait and see, I mean these guys are really wanting our opinion and knowledge on what works and doesn't what other gaming company done something like that on a level that the Planetside staff is doing. They already told us that have a business plan for the next couple years and will alway patch the game when needed.

[JPalmer]

You're right. And I agree completely. Don't listen to the religious fanatics who think the planetside 2 devs are Gods who won't do anything wrong. I saw that with Bioware and SWTOR. "Wait for beta" yeah, it's too late. They won't make sweeping changes during beta. The fact closed beta is only a few weeks says enough.




The beta will be months long. Things will be changed. They have not even had the right amount of people to put the final touches and details on some features because truthfully they have no clue how some of them will turn out.

We are saying wait for beta because half the features in the game will be changed in a little or huge way all through beta because they will finally have the people to get data, opinions, and feedback from.

[GuyFawkes]

I like what I've seen so far in e3 demo , howether the OP does bring up a good discussion .

I think whats missing is that the hex system, while much superior to the old lattice (imo) ,other than the resource has an underlying problem.

What I mean is, your faction gains whatever resource by controlling certain hexes. You can fight over the hex , but it leaves out positional tactics. You could theoretically just watch the map and see it look like a pie chart rotating clockwise . The mechanics make it hard to drop behind lines effectively to break it up ,almost forcing a centralised zerg and the rotating pie.

Can you isolate and cut off a fragment of the enemy hex area from its main part ? Will those in the cut off part be denied all the other resources of the main 'homeland'. Surely the likes of ant runs from an auraxium heavy hex to bring to a deficient part would add so much more depth? think of it like the merchant navy operating in ww2 , a convoy needing armed protection.
Just giving everyone access to anything as long as you own it, removes a full layer of tactical play beyond what could be incorporated.
If said hex is cut off from the main homeland , this adds another layer : do we just sacrifice that bit for the greater good or spearhead an attack towards it . The opposing faction may think the same and then at a point, drive a wedge and split the wedge to split the faction up further . Or , rethink again as it might mean fighting 2 full fronts and dividing your forces up too much.

Can you split off the hex that has tech plant from the main part , denying galaxy use from the main etc etc .

It's all fundamental stuff that hasn't been described in great detail so far and the OP raises some concerns . This all may be unfounded , since it isnt even beta yet

[Rbstr]

PS1 was pretty simple too. A lot of the depth came from the players.

This is what I don't understand. PS1 was INCREDIBLY simple:
You can blow up a handful things in a base, hack the console, wait 15 mins or take a glowing ball to another nearby place. That's EXACTLY conquest or CTF play.

If someone honestly thinks that the hex system and multiple capture objectives in a base is a more simplistic system than PS1s capturing mechanics you seriously need to have your head checked.

What in holy fuck do all of you mean when you say the game "lacks tactical play". Do you even know what tactics are?

Quite simply: People aren't seeing the forest for the trees. "Oh no, something is different - it's can't possibly be good anymore". It's a stupid argument.

Guess what, it's different and tactics and strategy are going to be different. That's a big difference from non-existent. The invention of the gun didn't negate the existence of strategy as a whole, it changed strategy.

[I SandRock]

The beta will be months long. Things will be changed. They have not even had the right amount of people to put the final touches and details on some features because truthfully they have no clue how some of them will turn out.

We are saying wait for beta because half the features in the game will be changed in a little or huge way all through beta because they will finally have the people to get data, opinions, and feedback from.

Closed beta will be a few weeks. Open beta comes after that. Open beta means there will be so many players testing that it will be impossible to have coherent discussions going on and they simply gather the most obvious vocal data. Which in the majority of cases isn't the most constructive.

Also, I've seen very, very few 'huge changes' based on feedback in beta tests of AAA games. You assume, I don't ;)

[Troscus]

So we should not bring up the point because it annoys you, that's it?

I'm reallllly sowwwy that you cannot stand a slight critic on an incoming game.
Pointing out potential flaws as soon as possible is good for the game, not bad, if you really care for PS2, you should know

Saying someone told you to shut up when what actually happened was they provided a decent, but not unstoppable counter-argument. Cop-outs work both ways. "Wait for Beta" is the side opposing you, "You just want to stifle my opinion" is your side's. That's all that's ever going to come of any debate.

If people would stop debating and start DISCUSSING, these forums would be much more pleasant.

[Shogun]

the op pretty much sums up my concerns about ps2.

ok, i enjoyed the e3 footage a lot and my concerns were somewhat adressed, but i still think ps2 can use ANY tactical addition it can get. ps1 was not only about killing people. but ps2 looks a little like that now.

BUT i am comparing to the final ps1 version, and it had some years to develope. so i hope the ps2 we see now is just the base and it will get tactical additions over time.
ps1 had no llu mechanic at launch. this was added later on. same for platoons, artillery, hackeroverhaul, engineer overhaul and deployable teleporters. those were not only new vehicles or items in the game, these were real gameplay additions.

i hope ps2 will get such additions as well.

will ps2 have a working denial system? dropping a generator was a valid and working strategy in ps1. also the denial of lattice connections , ntu drains and ant-denial and the denial of hartdrops by contlocking.
what has ps2 to offer?
only thing we have heard so far is ressourcedenial. BUT we also heard, that it might be totally useless because matt said you will gain ressources as long as you are fighting over something. so the losing faction will also get ressources as long as they try to defend or attack a base.
how can you deny ressources then?
i really would like to hear some infos about this from the devs.

and are there any other tactical mechanics to use?
are there other means of taking a base than capture a number of points?
is there any replacement for gendropping or draining? can anything in a base be destroyed? (terminals,gens,tubes)

[GhettoPrince]

Being good at video games doesn't make you special, liking hard video games doesn't make you smart. It's just entertainment.

It's a video game, and it isn't as hard or as clunky as the old planetside, the gameplay looks solid and the combat looks fun. You just have a really bad case of nostalgia.

[CuddlyChud]

I'm really liking the domination model. The most fun bases in PS1 were amp stations and tech plants since you could hold the CC but not the tubes, making it a lot more interesting. That's kind of like what bases now are, a more active capture mechanic. Futhermore, instead of blowing tubes, now you can capture forward tubes. Its true that there's no way to immediately end the fight (i.e blow the tubes or gen), but for me that's a good thing. Better than sitting for 15 minutes waiting for a possible (though rare) gal drop to retake the base.

[ringring]

PS1 was pretty simple too. A lot of the depth came from the players.

Also, the game is still under heavy development. There is only so much they can show. They can't very well tell us about a feature before they've even decided if it will be going into the game.

The core elements are there. Scale, 3 factions, combined arms, territory control. As long as it has those, a lot of the other stuff is much easier to add and change.

It's pretty hard to make team work not be superior to solo play, and from what I've seen they have worked equally hard on improving the ability for players to play as a team or solo. Solo will be an option, just not very effective. Pretty much how it was in PS1, except easier. Easier to team up, as well as easier to find some instant action solo play if you only have 15 minutes to hop in the game.

Some players may legitimately fear change, but I think the bigger problem is that more players don't grasp the change. They see something from the first game being changed to something else, and they see it as a loss. I believe Planetside 2 will play rather differently than the first game in a lot of ways, but I think a lot of these new elements will work together quite nicely to form a different yet equally rich experience.

Planetside 2 should be simple. Simple to get into. Deep once you get hooked. We still have plenty of development time ahead to help the devs get it right. But right now, the core of Planetside seems to me to be intact in the sequel, and the details don't worry me so much. A lot of that shit just needs to get hammered out in beta, and neither we nor the devs have enough data right now to make final calls on a lot of the issues.

This isn't to say don't discuss, it's more to say, I don't think this "dumbing down" talk gets at the really important issues to discuss. I'm saying a lot of the stuff that gets brought up in these threads is trivial, especially given our limited experience with any games like Planetside 2.

I agree with this especially the first line.

I was much enouraged a few months ago when Higby said that they had realised that what they need to do it bould a framework of a game and allow the players to create the content themselves - I've paraphrased a bit.

[Shogun]

i don´t say the new basecapture method is bad, i am just asking if it´s the only way to capture bases or if we have alternatives or bases that use another system (like llu bases in ps1 were different from hack and hold)

[JPalmer]

Closed beta will be a few weeks. Open beta comes after that. Open beta means there will be so many players testing that it will be impossible to have coherent discussions going on and they simply gather the most obvious vocal data. Which in the majority of cases isn't the most constructive.

Also, I've seen very, very few 'huge changes' based on feedback in beta tests of AAA games. You assume, I don't ;)

Changes don't just come from us.

They will get data for features they have said themselves will be changed in beta.

Like for one example how many players will actually be allowed in a continent. There is no way you can figure something like that out without thousands of testers.

There are many other features in which will be changed through beta. This is a MMOFPS. You have not seen any beta test of a triple A MMOFPS game that supports this number of players with three factions that is based under a F2p system.

Rigorous testing will be done. Features will be added, removed, changed, flipped upside down, and twisted around.

[basti]

But there lies the problem, there aren't any spawn tubes to send max crashes at. There aren't any gens to kill to deny vehicle or troop spawning with. There aren't any mechanical emplacements as it were to make it a viable option. I don't have a base to drain for a distraction.

And you come to that result HOW?

Dude, seriously, you lack information. There are apperently gens.

You really need to get your facts straight.

[Shogun]

And you come to that result HOW?

Dude, seriously, you lack information. There are apperently gens.

You really need to get your facts straight.

but i remember matt saying we will not be able to drop a gen. we will just be able to "interact" with it. sounds like it is just another capturepoint now, but we got no specific info. maybe there is something new we just got no info about.

[GuyFawkes]

Just to add that I think the multi-capture points within a given area and the variety described so far, far outway any of the old system mechanics .
The micro game seems pretty rock solid without many of the repetitive cheesy stuff of the old game. I dont see it as dumbing down, just old players like me will have to think outside of the box maybe .
Its the meta game I'm curious about , refer to my other post.

[Gonefshn]

And you come to that result HOW?

Dude, seriously, you lack information. There are apperently gens.

You really need to get your facts straight.

I am definitely on the same page as you as far as this discussion goes but I'm curios where they said gens are in the game. That's truly epic if it's true I just was not aware.

Either way. We already know there are different capture mechanics to different bases, though some will be repeated I'm sure, we still know for sure others are present.

We know nothing about capture times, weapon power, anything. There is no way to know what people will be capable of. But you can count on one thing. Large coordinated forces will be able to obliterate the zerging masses. If there is a stagnant front line a large outfit combined assault team will be able to smash through it, paving the way for their empires zerg to fill the hole. We don't need to know details about the game to know that players who work together will crush a million lone wolves that lack the information and communication of groups.

Players make the strategy and you can bet it will happen in this new model.

[Ironside]

The devs have took alot of elements that made ps1 special and thrown them away in order to make a broader appealling faster game for a wider audience, i guess that's moving with the times. Microtransactions is the way they wanna go and in order to make serious money they need a very large player base.

This is a conversation me and my mates have been having for months, i personally feel the depth and cohesion of the original game has been diluted to make a faster easier game that will have mass appeal.
I've changed the way i look at the game and got past the fact it isn't a ps1 clone, it looks and i'm sure it will play fantastic with huge epic battles with some teamwork thrown in..
but gone are the days where commanders had real influence, where you could kick opposing factions off a cont, where you could go for world domination, where specops teams could be real game changers, no more forming in sanc with huge armies ready to roll out and attack a cont.

I will enjoy it for what it is a beautiful looking fast paced game with insta action and huge battles.

For those that think they are gonna get in beta and drastically change the devs vision and direction of the game you're wrong you don't stand a chance, they have a very definite direction they wanna go in

[Kalbuth]

This is what I don't understand. PS1 was INCREDIBLY simple:
You can blow up a handful things in a base, hack the console, wait 15 mins or take a glowing ball to another nearby place. That's EXACTLY conquest or CTF play.

If someone honestly thinks that the hex system and multiple capture objectives in a base is a more simplistic system than PS1s capturing mechanics you seriously need to have your head checked.

What in holy fuck do all of you mean when you say the game "lacks tactical play". Do you even know what tactics are?

Quite simply: People aren't seeing the forest for the trees. "Oh no, something is different - it's can't possibly be good anymore". It's a stupid argument.

Guess what, it's different and tactics and strategy are going to be different. That's a big difference from non-existent. The invention of the gun didn't negate the existence of strategy as a whole, it changed strategy.

It's not about taking bases, it's about what can be done besides taking bases. Stop being so focused on only the taking / fight mecanism, the very point imho is that there could be valuable side objectives helping the main one. Without hindering the main fight to the slightest.
Taking out a tech gen to deny ennemy the right to get tanks and reavers, for example (so, no, gen was not simply about CR5 wanting to end a fight). Going cave to create new links and capture opportunities. Taking advantage of a low NTU situation to have a hack back in ennemy territory.
I'm not asking for all this to stay as is, I'm wondering what will be possible in PS2 besides the zerg? I see that targetting specific hex with specific resource is going to be a good focus. Capturing adjacencies of bases as well to help the capture of a well defended place (and btw, all this always revolves around capturing a point, there's not much diversity, like using some specific tools for a specific task - boomers vs gens, and all that stuff. Basically, a "capture squad" is going to be a standard, you won't have much to think about the task. But that's me thinking too far here :) )

The answer we get is "wait for beta".
May as well shut the forums but for a topic about "Beta gonna rock!"

[Haro]

Rose-tinted glasses. I'm surprised that some of you can see the screen in front of you through them..

Planetside the greatest game ever? First, that's totally subjective and unwarranted. A visionary game, yes. A fun game, usually. A unique game, most definitely. But please, spare me about it being the best game ever. You're deliberately overlooking plenty of things about the game that weren't good.

Poor level design, poor shooter mechanics, gameplay and netcode issues... believe me: from an objective stand point, the game was far from perfect. Don't get me wrong, I loved planetside, but I know that if no changes were made to the game, it would not do well.

For example: ANTs? Really? Who here actually enjoyed ANT duty, when it came up infrequently? We have a background resource system that fills similar roles, but doesn't require the use of the most boring and useless vehicle in the game.

And what about base capture? How is a multi-cap system any less "tactical" than the cap & hold system or LLU system we had before? You call it domination, but what was cap & hold but a kind of king of the hill where 20 guys sit around in a tiny control room for 15 minutes? What was LLU but a kind of capture the flag? There, I broke your sacred cows down into simple "dumb" gameplay styles. Does that make the original planetside dumbed down?

Planetside is a shooter game. By definition, it's main objectives are to shoot, fly and shoot, or drive and shoot. But much of the games true quality came out with massive coordination and cooperation. Tank columns, hot drops, sunderer convoys, and everything in between. That's what made Planetside what it is, and that's all still in there, and it may be better than ever. (I believe it will be.)

So please, cut the self-pitying crap, at least until you can actually experience it in beta. We've seen only a small fraction of what's going on, but what's more important is that it's getting attention and people are liking it. I'm sure you won't get everything you want in a game, just as I am not. But one thing I think we all should want is for the game to be successful, to get the attention it needs and deserves so that it doesn't wind up like it's predecessor. I'm willing to give up some things for that, because I have faith in the developers and in the aspects of the original that kept me in the game. How about you?

Wise words: You can't always get what you want but you may find, sometimes, you get what you need.

[Kalbuth]

For example: ANTs? Really? Who here actually enjoyed ANT duty, when it came up infrequently? We have a background resource system that fills similar roles, but doesn't require the use of the most boring and useless vehicle in the game.

Actually, in-fight ANT situations were great. Just because you didn't like that for whatever (justified) reason doesn't mean you should deny it to people liking it, provided it's not gonna hamper your own gameplay.
That's imho what we should try to think of (instead of insulting each others), additional objectives/tactics not impacting to what I call "the zerg", refering to main, fast paces, base fights that are going to occur

[Eyeklops]

but i remember matt saying we will not be able to drop a gen. we will just be able to "interact" with it. sounds like it is just another capturepoint now, but we got no specific info. maybe there is something new we just got no info about.

The generator in PS1 was a capture point of sorts.

[ringring]

Higby did say that there would be generators in ps2.
However, at the time this was in the context of the base has three sheilds and each shield has a seperate generator.
We now know that base shields have gone and I haven't heard anything about generators since then. So, are they still there, dunno.

[Shogun]

For example: ANTs? Really? Who here actually enjoyed ANT duty, when it came up infrequently? We have a background resource system that fills similar roles, but doesn't require the use of the most boring and useless vehicle in the game.

And what about base capture? How is a multi-cap system any less "tactical" than the cap & hold system or LLU system we had before? You call it domination, but what was cap & hold but a kind of king of the hill where 20 guys sit around in a tiny control room for 15 minutes? What was LLU but a kind of capture the flag? There, I broke your sacred cows down into simple "dumb" gameplay styles. Does that make the original planetside dumbed down?



if ressource denial really works it is a replacement for the ant, yes. but we were told that the losing faction will still get the ressources they are fighting over as long as they are actively trying. don´t know how this plays out, but it sounds as if there is no way to effectively deny ressources. if you killed all incoming ants in ps1, you could really deny something.

and about capture mechanics... the point is, that ps1 had different methods.
you are comparing the seperate ones to the only available new system. this system is ok, but it is only one system. some diversity would be cool. i admit that we don´t know if there are other systems we just didn´t get to see yet. some dev info about this would help.
if we got some capture the flag style bases in addition to the domination style, it´s ok. or if we can take other routes than just capture all points like disabling something forcing the enemy to send engineers to repair before they can go back to defending.

[Eyeklops]

Actually, in-fight ANT situations were great. Just because you didn't like that for whatever (justified) reason doesn't mean you should deny it to people liking it, provided it's not gonna hamper your own gameplay.
That's imho what we should try to think of (instead of insulting each others), additional objectives/tactics not impacting to what I call "the zerg", refering to main, fast paces, base fights that are going to occur

Really? 90% of ant runs were boring as fuck and annoying. And of the 10% that were exciting, 75% of that time was a boring drive/ride in a Lodestar. So as far as game mechanics goes, the ANT runs were about the worst bang-for-the-buck in all of PS1. They probably are about equal to killing gens on uncontested continents as far as "Thrill" goes. At least killing a gen involves blowing shit up. No, I cannot agree, TFG ants are gone.

[ringring]

and about capture mechanics... the point is, that ps1 had different methods.
you are comparing the seperate ones to the only available new system. this system is ok, but it is only one system. some diversity would be cool. i admit that we don´t know if there are other systems we just didn´t get to see yet. some dev info about this would help.
if we got some capture the flag style bases in addition to the domination style, it´s ok. or if we can take other routes than just capture all points like disabling something forcing the enemy to send engineers to repair before they can go back to defending.
Arclegger said in a broadcast that they either had or were developing another capture mechanic, he didn't give any detail on what it was though.

[Shogun]

when was there an announcement that the base shields are gone?

we didn´t see any shields lately, but maybe just because the particular base we saw doesn´t feature shields, and other bases do? (like only capitals had the big shield in ps1)

did i miss a dev talking about this?

[Goldeh]

So we should not bring up the point because it annoys you, that's it?

I'm reallllly sowwwy that you cannot stand a slight critic on an incoming game.
Pointing out potential flaws as soon as possible is good for the game, not bad, if you really care for PS2, you should know

All you basically said was. "I remember things in PS1, now that the things I remember in PS1 are no longer in PS2, PS2 is dumb"

...? It's kind of what I hear when these threads pop.

[Nasher]

They need to up the ttk I think. Also infantry weapons should never be a 1 shot kill (even on light armour). Even in the demo with just 50? people it seemed to easy to kill ground vehicles and MAXes at least. With 1000 you won't last 10 seconds once you get in range of the bases, there needs to be time to react to stuff.

If you can kill anything in a few seconds it becomes more about rush tactics than smart tactics, which is bad.

[Haro]

if ressource denial really works it is a replacement for the ant, yes. but we were told that the losing faction will still get the ressources they are fighting over as long as they are actively trying. don´t know how this plays out, but it sounds as if there is no way to effectively deny ressources. if you killed all incoming ants in ps1, you could really deny something.

and about capture mechanics... the point is, that ps1 had different methods.
you are comparing the seperate ones to the only available new system. this system is ok, but it is only one system. some diversity would be cool. i admit that we don´t know if there are other systems we just didn´t get to see yet. some dev info about this would help.
if we got some capture the flag style bases in addition to the domination style, it´s ok. or if we can take other routes than just capture all points like disabling something forcing the enemy to send engineers to repair before they can go back to defending.

I wouldn't want total resource denial for an empire: otherwise, serious territory loss could be very difficult to recover from. Gate locking would be a serious problem, where an empire has no territory because they can't spawn vehicles, and they can't spawn vehicles because they have no territory. But if things like liberators or large numbers of mbts became increasingly difficult to obtain, I think that could provide enough stimulus to pursue resources while not ruining an empire for losing them. Plus, we'll need to see how inter-continent travel works and whether resources can be transferred.

As for base captures, I'm probably a bad person to judge the original Planetside, because I don't know about you guys, but I think I only participated in an LLU capture once in 5 years of playing. The vast majority of my experiences were with base captures, which I wouldn't care to repeat all that often in PS2. Again, maybe the experiences with most of you guys is different, but for me, not a whole lot of variety.

Meanwhile, if Purrfectstorm and Arclegger's comments are anything to judge by, we will be getting more diverse capture options. On top of that, I recall seeing bases with varying numbers of points, and differing locations, so that trumps the control room hack by a mile.

[Saifoda]

Forget about his rant and testicle thing about the demo.
Thing is, we have zero info on what is going to be put on, true, and everything, everything that is emphasized avoids the subject. The publicity is all around the mass fighting aspect, it's all around the zerg. So yes, it's a little itching for those that enjoyed the totality of PS1, not just the zerg :) So, guess what, they ask questions about it.

As for your EDIT, Planetside is a game where, fortunately, I don't have to change game to achieve both tactics and shooter. It's funny how you kind of destroy your main argument with it, tbh. "We have no clue, be faithful and wait", followed by "if you want that, go away anyway". Well, if that's the answer, then yes, I'm going to continue annoying you with my questions




And you post snide remarks about it. That's the difference.

[Kalbuth]

Really? 90% of ant runs were boring as fuck and annoying. And of the 10% that were exciting, 75% of that time was a boring drive/ride in a Lodestar. So as far as game mechanics goes, the ANT runs were about the worst bang-for-the-buck in all of PS1. They probably are about equal to killing gens on uncontested continents as far as "Thrill" goes. At least killing a gen involves blowing shit up. No, I cannot agree, TFG ants are gone.
"I don't like gameplay X so I'm gonna pee on anyone that might like it"
Look, I don't care much what your combat preference is, case in point is that I, and many other, would like to see more variety than "capture this, then capture this, then capture that". I'm not preventing you to do so. Like in ps1, you would easily leave the ant job to others and keep on your own fun.
Btw, to repeat, I don't care much if ant is gone or not. I'm wondering what has to be done in ps2 besides endless capturing of points

[The Janitor]

How the hell is this thread still going?

[erunion]

Caring about the end product is not trolling. You on the other hand....

[Kalbuth]

All you basically said was. "I remember things in PS1, now that the things I remember in PS1 are no longer in PS2, PS2 is dumb"

...? It's kind of what I hear when these threads pop.

To precise again that I'm not looking for ps1 reincarnated :

It's not about taking bases, it's about what can be done besides taking bases. Stop being so focused on only the taking / fight mecanism, the very point imho is that there could be valuable side objectives helping the main one. Without hindering the main fight to the slightest. Taking out a tech gen to deny ennemy the right to get tanks and reavers, for example (so, no, gen was not simply about CR5 wanting to end a fight). Going cave to create new links and capture opportunities. Taking advantage of a low NTU situation to have a hack back in ennemy territory. I'm not asking for all this to stay as is, I'm wondering what will be possible in PS2 besides the zerg? I see that targetting specific hex with specific resource is going to be a good focus. Capturing adjacencies of bases as well to help the capture of a well defended place (and btw, all this always revolves around capturing a point, there's not much diversity, like using some specific tools for a specific task - boomers vs gens, and all that stuff. Basically, a "capture squad" is going to be a standard, you won't have much to think about the task

[MrBloodworth]

Really? 90% of ant runs were boring as fuck and annoying. And of the 10% that were exciting, 75% of that time was a boring drive/ride in a Lodestar. So as far as game mechanics goes, the ANT runs were about the worst bang-for-the-buck in all of PS1. They probably are about equal to killing gens on uncontested continents as far as "Thrill" goes. At least killing a gen involves blowing shit up. No, I cannot agree, TFG ants are gone.

You used a loadstar to do an ANT run? That was your problem.

The rest of us used a gal with full gunners and at-least two air-cav and did a low altitude drop.

Also, bring back ANT bombs!

[Xyntech]

You used a loadstar to do an ANT run? That was your problem.

The rest of us used a gal with full gunners and at-least two air-cav and did a low altitude drop.

Also, bring back ANT bombs!

Good ANT runs were a blast. I hope they not only figure out a way to bring them back, but actually make them happen a little more often.

ANT runs that were just maintenance were kind of lame though. I know that some people like having logistical stuff to do like that, but I couldn't care less if they removed the more boring ANT runs.

[ringring]

Good ANT runs were a blast. I hope they not only figure out a way to bring them back, but actually make them happen a little more often.

ANT runs that were just maintenance were kind of lame though. I know that some people like having logistical stuff to do like that, but I couldn't care less if they removed the more boring ANT runs.

Yea, but repeating Kalbuth that may be just you, on logging in I quite often liked to do an ant run or two to top up base before going into the heat of the action. Just like we used to often spend time setting CE at one of our bases. we used to call it therapy and laugh.

However, as much as it's a shame that kind of logistics are gone, it isn't really that important.

[Eyeklops]

"I don't like gameplay X so I'm gonna pee on anyone that might like it"
Look, I don't care much what your combat preference is, case in point is that I, and many other, would like to see more variety than "capture this, then capture this, then capture that". I'm not preventing you to do so. Like in ps1, you would easily leave the ant job to others and keep on your own fun.
Btw, to repeat, I don't care much if ant is gone or not. I'm wondering what has to be done in ps2 besides endless capturing of points

Sorry man, but I can see why it's gone. Why spend coding $$$ on a game mechanic when 75% of the people think its boring 75% time. Sometimes the minority loses, this is one of them.

[Dloan]

Let me ask a question. It was tactically a good idea to blow gens to stop a fight dead. To hack uncontested bases. To go behind enemy lines and drain bases, or take out tech plant gens to stop vehicles etc. Fly around capping empty towers. Run around fixing what is broken. Sit at a back base to protect gens. Ant runs etc etc etc. Most of the time it was a lot of sitting on your arse and hoping someone would turn up to fight. Most of the time, you were sorely disappointed.

I would say these were good tactics, but, because of the amount of downtime involved, they were bad gameplay for an FPS. These tactics were necessary because they were part of the game but did they really make PS great and their lack will destroy the tactical depth of PS2? Can't they be replaced by different mechanics?

Ask yourself why the lattice was implimented and consider what tactics it was designed to limit. Was this a good or bad change? Was it "dumbing down the game" or changing it for the better?

I understand that some people thrive on sitting on their arses for hours at a time doing nothing out of a sense of duty to their fellow players. They get fulfilment from doing stuff that most others would find extremely boring, I've corner camped an empty tower to kill an infil every 5-10 minutes myself, but do you really want to make these aspects major parts of gameplay and tactics? PS1 didn't last except for the "hardcore" element, and that was apparently back when people didn't play games to have fun ie "instant gratification".

[Xyntech]

However, as much as it's a shame that kind of logistics are gone, it isn't really that important.

I'm certainly not against that. I actually enjoyed a boring ANT run or two now and then. But I understand why the developers are trying to move away from stuff like that being mandatory for gameplay.

Maybe there are some ideas out there which would provide quieter stuff for players to do, which wasn't important to the ordinary gameplay, but wasn't useless either. Kind of a difficult balance I guess. Logistical players don't want to feel like their contribution is undervalued or useless I guess.

I just support the developers in wanting to remove situations where nobody wants to go top off some silos, so some duty bound fucker decides to unhappily go grind through refilling them all.

It's a tricky thing. But PS2 will be a very different game. Maybe there will be some logistical roles that we haven't even thought of yet, once we get our hands on it.

[Dreamcast]

Yeah man...It was so tactical getting shot and healing yourself every time.



Planetside 2= more teamwork.

[Xyntech]

Yeah man...It was so tactical getting shot and healing yourself every time.



Planetside 2= more teamwork.

This shit is even less useful than the so called "bittervet whining." Please don't. If you are going to be snide, at least don't hide behind pretending to be making a valid point.

[Dreamcast]

This shit is even less useful than the so called "bittervet whining." Please don't. If you are going to be snide, at least don't hide behind pretending to be making a valid point.

It is a valid point...a lot of people had the medic cert...and a lot of them healed themselves quite frequently when they got shot.


Those were the brilliant "complex" tactical depth of Planetside 1...

[captainkapautz]

It is a valid point...a lot of people had the medic cert...and a lot of them healed themselves quite frequently when they got shot.


Those were the brilliant "complex" tactical depth of Planetside 1...

Wasn't that the point?

If you are medic, you heal.

That includes yourself.

[Dreamcast]

Wasn't that the point?

If you are medic, you heal.

That includes yourself.

The point is the tactical depth of Planetside was amazing.



I wish Planetside 2 had instant health regen of about 10 seconds so it could replicate players healing themselves like in planetside 1.

[Marsgrim]

I actually think there will be more tactics in PS2 than in PS1, it's strategy I worry about.

Tactics in PS consisted of pushing in one of 2 or 3 entries to a base and getting farmed in the funnel.

You could opt to take gen or spawns true, but that then degenerated into rotten fights in low pop situations where 10 maxes would auto run to the gen or spawns and camp.

While "tactical" in a sense it truly wasn't PS2 seems to offer tactics via defending multiple points and utilizing base layout and terrain more than Planetside.

So yes, there are currently less targets that let you cripple a base, on the other hand the fights seems more tactical in a firefight and less likely to result in abuse of spawn camping or gen dropping.

[Xyntech]

Wasn't that the point?

If you are medic, you heal.

That includes yourself.

Absolutely.

Although I personally feel it detracted from the game when you could be an engi, a medic, a hacker, and a heavy assault wielder or sniper or etc etc etc, all at the same time.

Planetsides problem was that it was balanced for BR20, but ended up with BR40. I like Planetside 2's solution because it recognizes the potential pitfall of BR40 and attacks it head on, by embracing some elements such as being able to freely choose what role you want to play each life, while limiting some of the bad, such as being able to be a Galaxy pilot/medic/engineer/HA trooper.

[ringring]

The point is the tactical depth of Planetside was amazing.



I wish Planetside 2 had instant health regen of about 10 seconds so it could replicate players healing themselves like in planetside 1.
The bigger point is you're quite stupid if you think healing yourself is tactics.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

I wish Planetside 2 had instant health regen of about 10 seconds so it could replicate players healing themselves like in planetside 1.
You're in luck, shields regen in about that time frame and you don't even have to do anything.

[Zulthus]

Wow, what a bunch of dicks we have flowing into the forums. This thread is a valid concern and I share some of his viewpoints. The developers have stated they want feedback/concerns from the players and this is just that. If you don't have anything constructive to post, then don't post anything at all. You sound like ten year olds... leave the moderating to... the moderators.


Access... I know how you feel about the whole de-evolution thing... but we really don't know how it's going to turn out for sure at this point. Sure, I'd love destructible spawn tubes, generators, etc... they were great ways to control the flow of the fight.

[Zulthus]

He's trolling like many others have been lately. It's getting to the point it's not even worth posting or reading anything here.

Exactly... this place is turning into the likes of the PS1 forums.

[Dreamcast]

You're in luck, shields regen in about that time frame and you don't even have to do anything.

The person gets shot at 1:18....he fully heals at 1:56.......Thats 38 seconds.......

Prove
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-4AePpza-4


and Im the troll....LMFAO

I guess you Planetside 1 vets want to heal in 10 seconds so it can add more "tactical depth"

The bigger point is you're quite stupid if you think healing yourself is tactics.

It was part of the "tactical depth" of the game....You get shot, you heal.


If Planetside 1 had proper medic classes like in Planetside 2 the tactics would of change.

[SixShooter]

I actually think there will be more tactics in PS2 than in PS1, it's strategy I worry about.

Tactics in PS consisted of pushing in one of 2 or 3 entries to a base and getting farmed in the funnel.

You could opt to take gen or spawns true, but that then degenerated into rotten fights in low pop situations where 10 maxes would auto run to the gen or spawns and camp.

While "tactical" in a sense it truly wasn't PS2 seems to offer tactics via defending multiple points and utilizing base layout and terrain more than Planetside.

So yes, there are currently less targets that let you cripple a base, on the other hand the fights seems more tactical in a firefight and less likely to result in abuse of spawn camping or gen dropping.

I completely agree with this. I think that there is a lot of opportunity for great teamwork and tactics with PS2, they will just be different from the tactics of the first game. The game is what you make of it and if you see no reason or opportunity for tactics, as mentioned in the OP, then that will really be your loss. I'm really looking forward to being in squads and outfits that can take advantage of the new base layouts and resource management to make for some awesome teamwork and epic battles. Just because some of the PS1 tactics have been removed does not mean that all tactics have been removed or that there is not opportunity for new tactics.

[captainkapautz]

The point is the tactical depth of Planetside was amazing.



I wish Planetside 2 had instant health regen of about 10 seconds so it could replicate players healing themselves like in planetside 1.

Please don't troll just for trollings sake, yes PS1s certsystem wasn't stellar, doesn't mean it was as broken as you try to make it look.

You're in luck, shields regen in about that time frame and you don't even have to do anything.

You do.

Stay alive.

Exactly... this place is turning into the likes of the PS1 forums.

Well, some people clearly like stuff more if it is like in PS1 so why stop at the game?

[BorisBlade]

Sadly he is right, the deeper gameplay of ps1 is what i liked. PS2 is very shallow, basically just like BF. I hate sayin that cause it sounds cliche, but it is exactly like BF. Even the vehicle combat is a huge backward step with wimpy tanks that die in seconds to only one vehicle, even a lightning kills main tanks in seconds.

That isnt epic. You cant have large vehicle battles with these weenie tanks that have zero armor and die if you breathe on em. This hopefully will become apparent in beta and armor gets buffed 4x or more what it is now.

But there are soooooo many aspects that are just huge steps backwards. All the great things that i constantly talk about to friends that PS1 does so much better than any other game, (other than scale) are ALL completely gone from ps2. Not one of the many aspects that PS1 pioneered and did so awesomely are in ps2 other than scale. They just reverted back to the simplistic BF/CoD/etc etc model which honestly doesnt interest me in the least. Tryin to make things "faster" and "more lethal" is not really always a good thing.

We shouldnt cater to the ritalin crowd. Those players dont play long anyways. You get more players and more money from making a better game, not catering to the quick buck with yet another simplistic BF style game that just happens to have a higher player count.

BTW, the graphics look insane, which makes it all the more sad the gameplay is so lame, simplistic, and uninteresting.

[Raymac]

All the great things that i constantly talk about to friends that PS1 does so much better than any other game, (other than scale) are ALL completely gone from ps2.

I'm not going to debate you on it, because I'm not going to try to convince you. I'm sure we will disagree. However, I'm just curious about what you mean in the statement I quoted. What are some of the great things that PS1 did that are not in PS2?

[proxy]

PS2 is very shallow, basically just like BF. I hate sayin that cause it sounds cliche, but it is exactly like BF.

I cannot believe I just read this. Even if you guys were right or wrong, even if you went to E3, you would still not be able to tell.

I will not be returning to the FUD and hyperbole in this thread.

Good day.

http://gesvol.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/jump-to-conclusions.jpg?w=460&h=431

I SAID GOOD DAY.

[BattsTR]

I think some vets are very excited for a Planetside 2. Then when they watch said gameplay, even though its in its early stages, they don't recognize the game they remember. As one of those vets I have similar worries. Alot of people who enjoyed the original watched it get destroyed by poor decisions and bad marketing.
When i heard of "Planetside 2" i was pumped, started really looking into it, and i'm significantly less enthusiastic. That said it can still be a fun game, Ive enjoyed all the other significant fps's that have come along since Planetside, and maybe the beta will be a real eye opener to how great the game can be. I just hope the new game can really capture some of the old games great moments.

[DirtyBird]

There are others who dont post here that share the simplification concerns as the OP. I dont see a problem with it being mentioned and discussed.
Hopefully beta will quell a lot of the fears.

Now, questions I was asked in guild after reading this thread.

In PS1(early) you had to be certified in elite hacking to be able to hack a base but in PS2 (so far) anyone bar the MAX units can hack the base?

[captainkapautz]

In PS1(early) you had to be certified in elite hacking to be able to hack a base

Wait, what?

I can't remember ever needing any hacking to hack a base, but it has been literally years since the last time.

[wOOtbEEr]

I know one of the interviews talked about terminals being destroyed. So there are things in the environment that are destructible. Well just have to see if each base has a generator or something similar.

They really tried to dumb down what players needed to know to enjoy the E3 demo. Think if someone shut down your spawns and NO ONE on the other team knew how to bring them back up.

Anyway I'd imagine there will be plenty of interesting ways to attack the enemy without shooting them.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

You do.

Stay alive.

You saying you didn't have to do that in PS1?

I can run around in PS2 'not getting hit' and get back to full health, I can run around in PS1 'not getting hit' and will be on exactly the same health
UNLESS
I have actually certed, equipped[and not run out of medpacks, med tool] stamina [enough to use] and performed an action to do so.

It's is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON ME (or another) to get my health back to 100% through various active methods.

[Grimshad]

Forgive me as I didn't read the entire thread. I know most people are probably flaming and hating on the OP. However, the OP has a very valid point and it is a concern of many people. Just because someone was brave enough to call Planetside 2 out on an obvious and giant flaw in the system everyone always has to start hating because they point out a negative aspect of the game.

I too have noticed this flaw. Over the months of hearing Higby talk about Planetside 2 and how every time an important tactical gameplay aspect comes up he always responds with something like "It's not in the game, but we like the idea and would like to implement it". That doesn't mean they have or will implement it though. I know that at this point none of us really knows what the end product will hold and things may change, but just from what we've seen it looks like Planetside 2 has not only NOT added many new tactical options in favor of work on the customization system (which has nothing to do with gameplay and is just a vanity feature), but they have actually removed most, if not all of the original Planetside tactical choices from the game. Here is a list of just a few that we know currently aren't implemented:

• Hacking/Jacking vehicles
• Hacking Equipment/Medical/Implant Terminals to deny enemy use/help your faction
• Destroying the generator of a base to stop enemies from being able to utilize its systems
• Destroying base spawn tubes to deny enemies from spawning in the base
• Siege a base by cutting off its supply of nanite (destroying Ants)
• Having Vehicle Enter/Exit animations so people can't just pop in and out of vehicles instantly (This feature really • added a lot of awesomeness to PS1, it's sad they decided it was not worth re-adding it)
• Stopping enemies from running modules to the base to increase it's defensive/offensive capabilities
• I'm sure there are many more that I'm forgetting and someone else can list after this post.

The only new things that I have noticed are mostly strategic additions (i'm sure there may be more)

• Capturing or denying bases based on their resource output (strategic)
• Capturing territory around a base before capturing the base for quicker capture(strategic)
• Light Assault now have jetpacks(tactical)
• Mission System(strategic)


Like I said I'm sure there are more for both lists. I think it is great that they are adding more strategic depth to PS2, I myself am usually in a command position and the ease of a good commanding giving sensical orders and having people carry out important tasks will be great in PS2. There is just a lot on the tactical side of gameplay left to be desired. It's like they are building the internal systems for the commanders and the tactical side of the game is aimed only at cod/bf3 players for run and gunning only with a emphasis on teamwork. I understand there need to be grunts that just jump in and fight without thinking or worrying about anything else, but that doesn't mean you can't have the tactical depth for people who aren't just grunts.

Feel free to debate, but don't flame/hate, i'm trying to argue a valid point here.

[Fortress]

Don't judge the tactical potential of PS2 based on the E3 showing. You can't expect great things from players who haven't been given enough time to get out of the "crash into everything with everything" phase.

[Dreamcast]

Please don't troll just for trollings sake, yes PS1s certsystem wasn't stellar, doesn't mean it was as broken as you try to make it look.



It was broken...Everybody is a medic healing themselves.


All Im saying is that Planetside 2 has improved Planetside 1 in certain aspects.


Just because is a troll doesn't make it not true btw...and it wasn't a troll, it was pure facts that I said.

[Missundaztood]

Planetside 2. Devolution? It's an evolution!

[erunion]

Don't judge the tactical potential of PS2 based on the E3 showing. You can't expect great things from players who haven't been given enough time to get out of the "crash into everything with everything" phase.

As I've already pointed out, The OP and others are not talking about the organization of players, they are talking about game features. Completely unrelated.

[vampyro]

Im just happy planetside is back from the dead, i thought this franchise was done for years ago. Now your going to cry because its not ps1 wrapped in better graphics.

[varus critcher]

you do realise that many of these people were first time players and you only played for about 30 minutes right?

[erunion]

you do realise that many of these people were first time players and you only played for about 30 minutes right?

Again. Not related to topic at hand.

[DirtyBird]

Thx elfailo

[Fortress]

As I've already pointed out, The OP and others are not talking about the organization of players, they are talking about game features. Completely unrelated.

No, they are intrinsically related because the effect of any "feature" is unknowable until you get some solid players (ab)using it.

[Missundaztood]

Sometimes you must destroy, in order to create...

[Synapse]

How come this thread isnt dead?


The only thing he talks about is capture mechanics not being complex enough.

Sure we've talked about that, generators might be coming back, you may see spawn tubes come back as well, I really don't think this topic deserves as much as it's getting.

I expect its because of the "publishers dumbing down gaming" pseudophilosophy in the OP.

[erunion]

No, they are intrinsically related because the effect of any "feature" is unknowable until you get some solid players (ab)using it.

Either the game has destroyable tubes or it doesn't.

Perhaps your argument is that PS2 is more tactically diverse despite having fewer features? That puts a pretty heavy burden of proof on you to prove.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

It was broken...Everybody is a medic healing themselves.

Everybody in PS2 heals automatically, they don't even have to DO anything.

Why are you even defending regening health and shields when they've now got ranged medics/aoe heal nades etc?

This bizarre half and half undermines your whole premise of PS1 being broken because 'everyone could heal', since in PS2, 'everyone can regen'.

[Fortress]

Either the game has destroyable tubes or it doesn't.

Perhaps your argument is that PS2 is more tactically diverse despite having fewer features? That puts a pretty heavy burden of proof on you to prove.

Believe it or not I haven't played PS2, and I don't know how many features there are or how they work together so that's why I'm not going to panic like a hyper-reactive fuckwit. Oh, and take your burden of proof shit and shove it, I've advanced no claim, and the status of spawn tubes doesn't mean shit until you take into account their placement in each base and their relevancy when compared with things like the ease of reviving and the efficacy of squad spawning.

We can't talk tactics until we've played the game. Simple as that.

[Purple]

And yes making a hammer more complex can make it better at it's job. Find a way to combine the classic claw and ball-peen design and you are on to something. It's called flexibility/variety.

And no I am not crazy, I am just adhoc tweeting.

True but making a complex hammer has several big drawbacks.

-It may not work the way you want it to.
-It is more costly to build and buy.
-People may just buy a simple hammer that can be used simply instead of buying something complex that is not self explanatory.

if a consumer is a nail then a simple hammer will do just fine. there are alot of nails.

[jakerhodges]

They have squandering most of the great team play objectives of Planetside one so they can be more like the rest of the Fps games on the market. I expected so much more! from what i have seen so far from e3 i am utterly disappointed. Its all gone up in smoke or should I say its all gone on Flashy graphics and bullshit customizable weapons

[Kelts]

http://images.4chan.org/v/src/1339269339865.gif

[Electrofreak]

As most old-school gamers I was growing more and more sceptical towards the
gaming industry over the past years, since it seemed to hit a serious dead end
in terms of innovation or evolution of their games. I was getting bored, annoyed,
and finally angry at how the industry doesnt even care to try anymore.
Even more annoying is the fact that they gloriously succeeded in constantly
dumbing down their customers to a point where there is nothing more important
about a game but the name of the frenchise and technological advancements of
a games engine.

But than, at last, a deep and unspoken hope was answered last year with the
official announcement of Planetside 2. Hell yeah! I survived the drought-stricken
years of boring killgames, horrid rpgs and empty and lifeless mmos to embrace the
goddess called Planetside once again to entertain me for years to come.
Or so I thought...

I was excited and thrilled over every video we got to see, every stream,
interview and information we got to fantasize with. Well... that is until I got
to see the gameplay at the E3 livestream the last few days. And there it was,
like a lump on the testicles, the slowly rising realisation that things might
not work out as perfectly as you imagined.

After seeing the gameplay footage these past days I'm actually pretty amazed
how most of the so called "veteran" players tend to ignore the fact that nearly
all of the tactical gameplay, which was pretty much the backbone of Planetside,
is close to nonexistant in the sequel...

And what we are left with today is roughly:

1. killing stuff with a handgun
2. killing stuff with a vehicle
3. killing stuff with an aircraft
4. killing stuff with landing droppods on their heads
5. domination gametype

I'm very dissappointed since as of now the game got no kind of tactical depth
what so ever compared to the original. Without tactical hotspots like command
centers, generator rooms or even destroyable spawn points/equipment
terminals I honestly dont see a need for any planned out tactical gameplay
anymore which made Planetside the game we all loved. All we get is a massive
killgame as seen ever so often before.

Character/Weapon/Vehicle customization does not make a game interesting, the
gameplay does. And it is lacking way behind of what any honest veteran Planetside
player should expect it to be.
I dont really like what is advertised in the visual customization department either.
It is seriously lackluster and behind on what should be possible with the engine
or even is appealing enough to even pay for it. For example the oh so boring
different 20th century camo skins... why...?! this is not CoD MoH or hatever,
this is the 28th century, a time appropriate customization should not be too much
to ask for. I really hope theres much more interesting customization planned until
release, like nanowired or battleworn armor, since I honestly cant see the game
manage its finances with just the booster sells in the long run.

Dont get me wrong, I love the engine, the fast paced action, skies burning up
from airbattles, falling debree and the design and textures of the models. (the
vehicle and base ones, the weapons on the other hand are really in need of some
workover sound/modelwise)

But please, why the freck does it have to be a so damn simplified Planetside?

Welcome to the de-evolution of games, where the developers nowadays accredit
the avarage gamer the attention span of a squirrel. (which is according to a
random internet person up to 4 minutes)
:domotwak:

You wrote ALL that and failed to realize that what you were looking at is a bunch of people who have never played the game before walking off the E3 floor and playing confined to a single base on an Alpha build.

...and you actually think it's representative of how the game will be when thousands of players are playing across the 64 km continents on a finished product.

Either that or you put an awful lot of work into a trollpost.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Let this thread die please.

*Lobs AoE Res-nade into thread from PSU frontpage*

Never!

[Electrofreak]

Let this thread die please.

Sorry. OP filled me with rage.

[ThermalReaper]

Can we please wait for the beta and then judge if it's really simplified or not? I hate spamming this comment over most threads.

[Haro]

I agree 100% with the OP. PlanetSide 2 is going to be dumbed down just like all modern shooters in order to make it fun for the idiot masses. All the great things that made the first PlanetSide so amazing are being removed or dumbed down. The game doesn't even deserve to have PlanetSide in it's name (Battlefield Auraxis is more fitting). Health regeneration, TTk, Lack of Vehicles,footholds, being ignored by the devs, weak vehicles, weak MAXES, killcams, and much more are signs that they are dumbing this game down. :(

Your post is bad and you should feel bad. Seriously, how does a lack of vehicles translate to dumbed down gameplay? I'm not even sure where to begin with you, except to recommend a therapist.

[ArmedZealot]

I agree 100% with the OP. PlanetSide 2 is going to be dumbed down just like all modern shooters in order to make it fun for the idiot masses. All the great things that made the first PlanetSide so amazing are being removed or dumbed down. The game doesn't even deserve to have PlanetSide in it's name (Battlefield Auraxis is more fitting). Health regeneration, TTk, Lack of Vehicles,footholds, being ignored by the devs, weak vehicles, weak MAXES, killcams, and much more are signs that they are dumbing this game down. :(

TROLOLOLOLOLOL

[Electrofreak]

Your post is bad and you should feel bad. Seriously, how does a lack of vehicles translate to dumbed down gameplay? I'm not even sure where to begin with you, except to recommend a therapist.

I also find it interesting that the people who keep complaining that PlanetSide is being "dumbed down" in PS2 seem to be the ones who have trouble with things like spelling and grammar.

Just something I've noted.

[Electrofreak]

Yeah lets wait, and let SOE dumb the game even more? No Thanks.

It's all of what, a couple weeks to Beta? You suit your name well.

[ArmedZealot]

It's all of what, a couple weeks to Beta? You suit your name well.

hemad

[Haro]

Yeah lets wait, and let SOE dumb the game even more? No Thanks.

Then there is no point to this thread. These arguments are no longer based on logic or reason, it's all irrational hysteria and self-satisfying prattle. Seriously, if you're going to claim the game is dumbing down, then at least try to be remotely intelligent about the discussion.

Someone needs to put this thread down like Old Yeller, there's nothing to see here.

[ArmedZealot]

In those couple of weeks SOE can change A LOT!

You are still whining about killcams bro... that just goes to show how out of touch you are.

Go make a new fake account and try again.

[ThermalReaper]

How could SOE fail when they seem to determined not to? When was the last time you saw popular developers speak with the fanbase and listen to feedback? Higby gave up the freedom of shaving until beta for us. And the new kill cams are bloody awesome.

[Landtank]

Good riddance, if you are stupid enough to think E3 was representative of gameplay then I won't have to deal with you in game.

[Tarconus]

no more forming in sanc with huge armies ready to roll out and attack a cont.


That I think you could still do just form up at your foot hold

[stargazer093]

In those couple of weeks SOE can change A LOT!

"you want to play you play you don`t want to play you go away (tbh i want to say gt*o but whatever...)"

yes, as simple as that:groovy: